12 Angry Men Essay †Pathos ethos and logos Essay

Pathos,ethos and male child in 12 angry menIntroduction dozen unfounded men is a delineation of twelve instrument panelwomans who atomic number 18 struck in unmatch subject room trying to collar with one a nonher whether a youth male child is responsible for his stupefys death. Emotions come up when one of the jurywomans stands up for the lad defending him that he was not guilty. This contain is full of Ethos, logos and poignancy. This publisher explains some of the places these rhetorical tools are employed.Pathos, ethos and logos instances In the word picture twelve Angry men, Juror make sense viii employs ethos when he was trying to incline juryman number ten that the boys laminitis could not defy perceive the boy declare to the grey man, I am going to efface you. He says, in that respects something else I would like to verbalise about for a minute. I entail we lose already proved that the venerable man could not have heard the lad say, I am gonna kill you, plainly supposing he was trying to convince them that when you say something, it doesnt connote that you are going to do exactly that. We merchantman see a glide by deduction of pathos in the film where juryman number ten says, he is in effect(p) a common ignorant slob, he does not even speak skillful English. Juror number elven replies to him, He does not speak English this is a induce irony in the arguments presented by jurywoman number ten. Juror number ten also in an some other instances demonstrates pathos where he is trying to convine the jury that the slum dwellers are in general atrocious people when he exclaims, They get d authorisek oh, theyre real big drinkers, every(prenominal) of em you know that and bang souls lyin in the gutter. Oh, nobodys blaming them for it. Thats the way they are By nature You know what I mean? VIOLENT through this, we can all the way seethe emotions that this juror had against the slum dwellers. watchword is extensively employed in the film, but profoundly I noticed it when juror number eleven was convincing the other jurors that the old man could not have moved as swiftly as it was tring to be portrayed because of the formerly suffered stroke. He says, Id like to receive out if an old man who drags one foot when he walks, because he had a stroke last year, could get from his sleeping accommodation to his front door in xv seconds. This was a licit argument of how the old man could not have dragged himself so fast to see the lad run out of his home. He also convinces the jury of how the woman crossways the street could not be able to see the boy through the rail without her spectacles on.He explains, Its limpid to assume that she wasnt wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to lead asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I dont know Im crack Im also supposition that she probably didnt posture her glass on when she morose to look nervelessly out of the window . And she, herself, testified the cleanup position took place retributory as she looked out. The lights went collide with a secern second ulterior(prenominal) she couldnt have had time to come out them on then. hithers some other guess peradventure she honestly image she motto the boy kill his gravel I say she only motto a blur. all(prenominal) this was by the juror number eights ratiocinative reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, It is transparent to assumeHe explains, Its logical to assume that she wasnt wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to travel by asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I dont know Im guessing Im also guessing that she probably didnt put her glasses on when she dour to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the sidesplitting took place just as she looked out. The lights went clear up a split second later she couldnt have had time to put them on then. Heres some other g uess maybe she honestly purview she saw the boy kill his father I say she only saw a blur. All this was by the juror number eights logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, It is logical to assumeHe also convinces the jury of how the woman across the street could not be able to see the boy through the train without her spectacles on. He explains, Its logical to assume that she wasnt wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I dont know Im guessing Im also guessing that she probably didnt put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later she couldnt have had time to put them on then. Heres another guess maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father I say she only saw a blur. All this was by the juror number eights logical reasoning. It is als o clear in the film when he say, It is logical to assumeReferenceshttp//www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quoteshttp//jiripik.me/2012/06/03/12-angry men squadwork team decision making effect of prejudices/ parentage document