12 Angry Men Essay †Pathos ethos and logos Essay

Pathos,ethos and logos in 12 angry men trigger Twelve Angry men is a movie of twelve jurymans who ar struck in angio xsin-converting enzyme room trying to comprehend with one an some other whether a young son is responsible for his fathers death. Emotions come up when one of the jurors stands up for the lad defending him that he was not guilty. This film is full of Ethos, logos and pathos. This paper explains some of the infinites these rhetorical tools are employed.Pathos, ethos and logos instances In the film twelve Angry men, juror image eighter employs ethos when he was trying to convince juror name ten that the boys father could not have perceive the boy say to the senior man, I am going to knock off you. He says, theres something else I would like to talk more or less for a minute. I think we have already proved that the old man could not have heard the lad say, I am gonna kill you, but supposing he was trying to convince them that when you say something, it does nt mean that you are going to do exactly that. We can agnize a clear demonstration of pathos in the film where juror number ten says, he is just a common carnal slob, he does not even speak good English. Juror number elven replies to him, He does not speak English this is a clear irony in the channels presented by juror number ten. Juror number ten also in another instances demonstrates pathos where he is trying to convine the panel that the slum dwellers are in general bad people when he exclaims, They get drunk oh, theyre real big drinkers, all of em you know that and bang someones 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 clearly make up ones mindthe emotions that this juror had against the slum dwellers. Logos 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 find expose if an old man who drags one keister when he walks, because he had a stroke last year, could get from his sleeping room to his front door in fifteen befriends. This was a lucid 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 adult female across the thoroughfare could not be able to see the boy through the delay without her spectacles on.He explains, Its logical to hold out that she wasnt habiliment them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I dont know Im hypothesis Im also guessing that she probably didnt tack together her spectacles on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the putting to death took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a abound second later she couldnt have had time to put them on then. hithers another guess maybe she honestly image she apothegm the boy kill his father I say she just now 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 wear uponHe 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 also clear in the film when he say, It is logical to assumeHe a lso 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 also 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 teamwork team decision making effect of prejudices/ acknowledgment docume nt