Hasty Generalization/ Conclusion (Dicto Secundum) The first fallacy is an example of a Hasty Generalization. A Hasty Generalization is when there is not enough information to draw a conclusion but one is inappropriately found anyway. The character from Twelve Angry Men who committed this fallacy was the Father, juror #3. The Father referenced the boy’s trial as an “open and shut case.” The Father’s reference was a Hasty Generalization, because it could imply that he only listened to the prosecution during the trial. By saying it was simple to just open and shut the case, he must have not given the other side to the story a chance. What he should have done was considered both sides and made a judgment from that. It is important to recognize …show more content…
Guilt By Association is when a person accuses another person of acting a certain way simply because they belong to or are associated with a group. The character from Twelve Angry Men who committed the fallacy was the Yankee, juror #7. The Yankee repeatedly calls juror #5 “Baltimore,” which is not the man’s name. The Yankee’s comment to juror #5 is a Guilt By Association because Yankee is trying to imply that since juror #5 is a Baltimore fan, he must be like other people from Baltimore. Yankee is claiming that juror #5 acts just like other people from Baltimore, and the stereotype is poor and violent. What he should have done was learn more about the man’s background to see if he is like the stereotype before assuming. It is important to recognize Guilt By Association because it is usually related to stereotypes. They project a false image that could be biased, and can cause a person to be judged by the people they surround themselves with. If a person’s friends get into trouble at school often, the person could be disliked by the teacher even when he didn’t do anything wrong. This type of prejudice is not a legitimate way to form an argument. Circular Reasoning (Circulus In …show more content…
How do we know the boy wasn’t at the movies? The boy couldn’t remember the names of the movies.. Why couldn’t he remember the names of the movies? The boy wasn’t at the movies. The Stockbroker should have used other facts in the claim to support his argument instead of using two the only support each other. This is not a strong claim because the statements only get support from each other. It is important to recognize when a person uses Circular Reasoning in an argument because it will usually appear true and foolproof. Both of the reasons are a cause and effect for the other, and it seems to all make sense. Although the claim appears true, it usually has vague premises that lead to a conclusion, but fails to leave out other important facts. There is no useful information used to draw the conclusion. If a person was to argue that his friend is stupid, he could reason by saying it’s because the friend isn’t smart. The reasoning to why the friend isn’t smart would be because he is stupid. The claim has no real evidence or explanation to support
They don’t know what truth is” (Ross 59). When Juror 10 says these things we can see how his prejudice affects his ability to discover the truth. Many of the other jurors show no real sign of bias when discussing the innocence or guiltiness of the kid. For example, near the end of the play Juror 4 states, “I still believe the boy is guilty of murder. I’ll tell you why.
Did you know that approximately 72% of wrongful conviction involved eyewitness misidentification? In the play, “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, The 7th Juror is very savage because he is ignorant, sassy, and he does not care. He will say anything that comes to mind without even thinking about it. From making fun of someone’s race, to calling someone an elderly, he will speak his thoughts.
Civility will encourage your opponents to keep listening to you. The play Twelve Angry Men shows that civility is important. By the end of the play, the jurors were willing to listen to the people who were the most rational. Juror 8 calmly took the other’s ideas into account, which swayed the jury to favor not guilty. Most of the jury was convinced the boy was guilty, but Juror 8 used relaxed tactics to change their minds.
Differential association is a theory based on the social environment and its circumventions, individuals and the values those individuals gain from significant others in their social environment. (Williams & McShane, 64-65) This theory suggests that these techniques, motivations, rationalizations and attitudes are learned through interactions with people close to them. It does not suggest that people whom are surrounded by negative or criminal actions are negative or criminal. Instead, it suggests that those who have a preponderant ratio of unfavorable to favorable definitions of deviant behavior are more liable to act in a deviant way.
Every human being has been in a situation where they are challenged to go along with what other people say whether if it is right or wrong, rather than going along with their own perspective and doing what they feel is right, even though they may face consequences, that may or may not impact their relationships with their friends and family, and even their means of support. The movie Good Night, and Good Luck and The Crucible by Arthur Miller illustrates the danger of false accusations by going along with others in an attempt to educate the public by accusing others without any logic reasoning. The Crucible and Goodnight, and good luck both have themes of agitation and a lot of paranoia or madness. In the Crucible, the towns people are worried about the appearance of witches in their town and so they end up accusing other people of being witches.
Concept Of fallacious arguments and analysis of fallacious arguments in the movie Twelve Angry-Men :- Fallacy is a misconception which results from incorrect reasoning. According to traditional accounts fallacy is a pattern of bad reasoning which appears to be a pattern of good reasoning. Some other researchers define a fallacy an argument which is not good. Basically we can divide fallacy into two parts namely informal fallacy and formal fallacy. Informal fallacy is a misconception because of its form and its content.
12 Angry Men portrays a story about a boy who is on trial for allegedly murdering his father. However, it is not about the boy. Instead, this story is about the twelve jury members’ deliberation and how they come to the verdict of “not guilty.” Yet, this was not an easy decision, and a lot of conflict brought them to a place where they could all agree on a verdict. Furthermore, these jury members handled the conflict very differently.
“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” quoted by a man whose name is Norm Crosby. People who get called in for jury duty who are biased or unfair on the case have a valid reasoning to be dismissed from sitting in on a jury duty. Although some people don’t always take advantage of this opportunity, they are stuck in attending the jury duty and is unfair because they are biased to the situation. This ties into the short play called “Twelve Angry Men” written by Reginald Rose, because there were jurors who sat in on the case who were biased to the setting and continued to make an appearance at the jury duty. “Twelve Angry Men”, Rose demonstrates the danger
Prejudice and preconceived notions in “Twelve Angry Men” impacted the votes of the jury. The jurors were very prejudice against the defendant who was accused of killing his father, because he was from the slums and because he was arrested a few times. Juror 3 was the most prejudice and requested that the boy should be put in jail before even hearing the story. Juror 3 thinks that the two witnesses are enough to prove that he’s guilty. The first witness, the old man downstairs, said he heard the boy yell “I’m gonna kill you” at 10 minutes after midnight and then heard a body hit the floor.
I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise.’ – This is the justification given by juror 2 on why he thinks that the boy is guilty. This statement involves the ‘Appeal to Ignorance’. Just by saying that nobody proved that God doesn’t exist, therefore God exists, isn’t enough.
Picture that student that gets straight A’s in every class and seems to pass every single test they take. Immediately, that student is considered to be the nerd who takes numerous Advanced Placement, or AP, classes and has no social life. Assumptions such as these lead to people creating a generalization about each other, or a stereotype, which is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Psychologists state that people stereotype because our brains are wired to do so. Unfortunately, making such assumptions comes with a disadvantage.
This week happened to be more than what I expected. From the beginning, I was looking up to this time of the course because I have a lot of answered questions in my mind about racism, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. The first thing that overwhelmed me, though it is a reality, is what the author called “out-group homogeneity effect”. The fact that stereotyping is so easy as we convince ourselves that people who are not part of our in-group have nothing in common with us, and that they are all the same; while we (in our in-group) are unique and individual. This explains what Professor Robert Jensen meant by the white supremacy and how they believe to be special, intelligent, and they are the ones who made this great country.
Stereotyping is an unconscious biases we make on someone’s attributes. Some proponents argue that all asians are intelligent or all white boys shoot up schools. He or she views individuals of their groups are credible and that the statements they attach to others are rationale. These people will constantly be punitive towards another who is different in age, gender, race, or religion based on their assumptions. stereotyping can originate when we make assumptions about people who are in any way different from us.
• For a deductive argument to be valid , it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. The classic example of a deductively valid argument is: – 1.