12 Angry Men Essay – Pathos ethos and logos Essay

Pathos, values and logo designs in 12 angry guys

Intro

Twelve Angry guys is a film of twelve jurors who are struck in one room attempting to comprehend with one another whether a young kid is responsible for his daddy’s death. Feelings come up when one of the jurors stands up for the lad protecting him that he was innocent. This movie has lots of Ethos, logo designs and pathos. This paper explains a few of the locations these rhetorical tools are used.

Pathos, values and logo designs instances

In the film twelve Angry males, Juror number 8 employs principles when he was trying to convince juror number ten that the boy’s daddy could not have heard the kid say to the old guy, “I am going to kill you”. He states, “there’s something else I wish to discuss for a minute. I believe we have actually already proved that the old guy could not have actually heard the lad say, “I am gon na eliminate you”, but expecting …” he was attempting to persuade them that when you state something, it doesn’t suggest that you are going to do precisely that.

We can see a clear demonstration of pathos in the film where juror number 10 says, “he is just a typical ignorant slob, he does not even speak excellent English.” Juror number elven replies to him, He does not speak English …” this is a clear paradox in the arguments provided by juror number ten. Juror number ten also in another circumstances shows pathos where he is attempting to convine the jury that the run-down neighborhood residents are in general bad people when he exclaims, “They get drunk … oh, they’re genuine huge drinkers, all of ’em– you understand that– and bang: somebody’s lyin’ in the rain gutter. Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s the way they are! By nature! You know what I indicate? VIOLENT!” through this, we can clearly simmer emotions that this juror had against the slum occupants.

Logo designs is thoroughly utilized in the film, however profoundly I saw it when juror number eleven was convincing the other jurors that the old man might not have actually moved as quickly as it was tring to be portrayed since of the formerly suffered stroke. He says, “”I want to discover if an old man who drags one foot when he walks, due to the fact that he had a stroke in 2015, might receive from his bedroom to his front door in fifteen seconds.” This was a logical argument of how the old man could not have dragged himself so quick to see the lad run out of his home. He likewise convinces the jury of how the woman throughout the street might not be able to see the boy through the train without her spectacles on.

He discusses, “It’s sensible to presume that she wasn’t wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to drop off to sleep.” Then the juror continues by stating, “I don’t understand– I’m guessing! I’m likewise thinking that she most likely didn’t put her glasses on when she turned to look delicately out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place simply as she watched out. The lights went off a flash later on– she could not have actually had time to put them on then. Here’s another guess: possibly she truthfully thought she saw the kid kill his dad– I state she only saw a blur.” All this was by the juror number 8’s rational reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, “It is sensible to presume …”

He discusses, “It’s sensible to assume that she wasn’t using them when she remained in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to drop off to sleep.” Then the juror continues by stating, “I don’t know– I’m guessing! I’m also thinking that she probably didn’t put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, affirmed the killing happened simply as she watched out. The lights went off a split second later on– she couldn’t have actually had time to put them on then. Here’s another guess: perhaps she honestly thought she saw the young boy kill his dad– I say she just saw a blur.” All this was by the juror number eight’s logical thinking. It is also clear in the film when he state, “It is sensible to assume …”

He also persuades the jury of how the lady across the street could not be able to see the young boy through the train without her spectacles on. He explains, “It’s logical to assume that she wasn’t wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep.” Then the juror continues by saying, “I don’t understand– I’m thinking! I’m also guessing that she probably didn’t put her glasses on when she relied on look casually out of the window. And she, herself, affirmed the killing took place just as she watched out. The lights went off a split second later– she couldn’t have actually had time to put them on then. Here’s another guess: possibly she truthfully believed she saw the kid eliminate his father– I state she only saw a blur.” All this was by the juror number 8’s logical thinking. It is also clear in the movie when he say, “It is rational to presume …”

Recommendations

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quoteshttp://jiripik.me/2012/06/03/12-angry males teamwork group choice making result of prejudices/

Source document

You may likewise have an interest in the following: principles pathos logos essay example

You Might Also Like