ABSTRACT

Critical thinking aims to teach the difference

between good and bad reasoning, and to make
us better deliberators and decision makers.

Raja Soomro
Logical & Critical Thinking

12 Angry Men
Critical & Logical Thinking with Analysis
Arguments/Dialogues & Counter Replies from Different Scenes:
1. Juror#7: So what'd you vote not guilty for?
Reply: Juror #8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand
and send a boy off to die with-out talking about it first.

Proposition: 12 jurors had to decide on Guilty & not guilty by raising hands.
Premises: Decision for the case
Conclusion: 11 jurors raised hand for guilty & 1 juror raised hand for not guilty.

2. 12TH JUROR: (to 8th Juror) What d'you think of the case? It had a lot of interest for me.
No dead spots - know what I mean? I'll tell you we were lucky to get a murder case. I
figured us for a burglary or an assault or something. Those can be the dullest.
Reply: 8TH JUROR: ...Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know - living in
a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage
while his father served a jail term for forgery. That's not a very good head start. He had a
pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That's all.
Proposition: 12th juror stated that the case had no strong point and was a clean cut guilty
case.
Premises: 12th Juror had already decided that the case had nothing to proven not guilty.
Conclusion: 8th Juror was of the opinion that the just by looking at the boy’s background of
neglectfulness we cannot decide there and then on his life.

3. 3RD JUROR: Yeah, well I've got (a kid). He's twenty. We did everything for that boy,
and what happened? When he was nine he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so
ashamed I almost threw up. So I told him right out. "I'm gonna make a man outa your or
I'm gonna bust you in half trying." Well, I made a man outa him all right. When he was
sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two
years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out...[He breaks off. He has said more than he
intended. He is embarrassed.] All right. Let's get on with it.
Reply: 8TH JUROR: No. I'm saying it's possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone
else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It's possible.
Proposition: 3rd Juror gave an example of a child he had who evidently proved to become a
bad boy.
Premises: 3rd Juror wanted to oust his rage of the kid he had raised who had become bad on
the kid who was at the trial.
Conclusion: 8th juror stated that there is a possibility that the kid in trial can be not guilty just
because of a knife that can be bought at any place and showed them the same exact knife.

4. 3RD JUROR: That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they're like. What they do to
you. How they kill you every day. My God, don't you see? How come I'm the only one
who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin' in.

Page 1 of 10
Reply: 8TH JUROR: It's not your boy. He's somebody else. 4TH JUROR: Let him live.

3RD JUROR: All right. "Not guilty."

Proposition: 3rd Juror was confirmed and abused the kid that he knew the kid was guilty.
Premises: 8th juror motivated him and told him that it was not the same kid of his.
Conclusion: 8th Juror turned the 3rd juror who was so confident of the kid being guilty, by
reason and critical thinking that not all 5 fingers are alike.

5. Juror No. 3: You're talking about a matter of seconds! Nobody can be that accurate.
Reply: Juror No. 8: I think testimony that could put a boy into the electric chair should be
that accurate.
Proposition: 3rd juror wanted to conclude the testimony quickly they had to give about the
boy to the Judge
Premises: because of being in hurry the 3rd juror wanted to finish the discussion.
Conclusion: 8th juror stated that if they were all going to be responsible for the kid’s death
sentencing the testimony had to be strong and without any doubts.

6. Juror #8: I just want to talk.

Reply: Juror #7: What's there to talk about? Eleven of us think he's guilty. No one had to
think about it twice except you.
Proposition: 8th Juror just stated passively that he wanted to discuss logically.
Premises: Proper logical reasoning.
Conclusion: Juror #7 implied that there is no room for reasoning and stated that the majority
is authority.

7. Juror #10: Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.
Reply: Juror #11: *Doesn't* even speak good English.

Proposition: 10th Juror implied because the boy’s origins are not American and cannot speak
proper English he was guilty and was a bad boy.
Premises: Discrimination due to language and creed.
Conclusion: Juror #11 sarcastically corrected the juror #10 that even you cannot speak
proper grammatical English and corrected his sentence.

8. Juror #3: What's the matter with you?

Reply: Juror #4: I have a reasonable doubt.

Proposition: Juror#3 scolded juror#4 that the case was evident enough for a quick decision.
Premises: Problem of thought and perception
Conclusion: Juror #4 was in hurry to decide quickly and due to doubt in his mind he did
wanted to give a verdict and decide.

Page 2 of 10
9. Juror #2: It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from
the word, 'Go'. Nobody proved otherwise.
Reply: Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution.

Proposition: Juror#2 implied that he was clear in his mind that the boy was guilty from the
very beginning.
Premises: Presumption based on 1st look.
Conclusion: Juror #8 said that the constitution has a clause that the defendant’s lawyer does
even have to prove that the boy was not guilty but even then he was representing the boy
to defend him in court of law and burden was evidently falling on the prosecutor who was
prosecuting the boy of the crime of murder.

10. Juror #7: What, just because I voted fast? I think the guy's guilty. You couldn’t change
my mind if you talked for a hundred years.
Reply: Juror #8: I'm not trying to change your mind. It's just that we're talking about
somebody's life here. I mean, we can't decide in five minutes. Sup-posing we're wrong?
Proposition: Juror#7 wanted to imply that because of quick voting of the boy being guilty he
was right in doing so and nobody could change his mind ever.
Premises: Pre-assumed, illogical stubbornness
Conclusion: Juror #8 passively and emphatically stated to juror #7 that if they were all going
to decide for somebody’s life it had to be given a thought and not long enough but just
enough to be not wrongful sentencing.

11. Juror #10: She's dying with the heat. Know what I mean? Anyway, she looks out the
window and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time
is 12:10 on the nose. Everything fits. Look, she's known the kid all his life. His window is
right opposite hers, across the el tracks, and she swore she saw him do it.
Reply: Juror #8: Through the windows of a passing elevated train.
Proposition: Juror #10 stated that the witness saw the boy do it from her window of a
moving train
Premises: Evidential proofing.
Conclusion: Juror #8 reasoned that the women witnessed the crime from her window of a
passing and moving at odd hours and it was dark at that time of the train and the crime
which can be doubtful, hence not solid proof.

Page 3 of 10
Inductive Arguments & Validity and Invalidity:

Definition: The inductive reasoning definition, it is the process of using the past to predict future
behavior or occurrences.

Examples: One of the poorest examples of inductive reasoning given during the film is that the
boy's friend said he had a unique knife. The boy claimed that he lost his knife, and the store
owner said that the switchblade knife that the boy carried was the only one he had. The
switchblade knife was very unusual. The knife was found at the crime scene. Therefore the boy
must be the killer. The facts may look convincing that the boy was the killer, but looking at it in
a different perspective it turned out not to be trustworthy. It is a poor example because the store
owner claimed that the knife was the only one that he had but the same looking switchblade
knife was bought by one of the jurors (the architect) just two blocks from the boy's building. It
does not mean that the boy owned the only knife there is and that he was the killer. If we accept
that the boy who owned the knife was the killer, than that means that the architect or anybody
out there that owned the same knife could be the killer. The fact that the boy had a knife cannot
be considered as an evidence that he will use the knife to kill his father. The boy did have the
reputation of using the knife in fighting but that does not mean that he bought the knife to kill his
father. It may be a coincidence that the boy just happened to have a knife that was similar to the
weapon on the crime scene.

The inductive argument that a knife looks unique, that a person is skillful with a knife, that the
person is a previous criminal, and that a person who has a switchblade has used it, turned out to
be a bad inductive argument since the facts did not add to a conclusion. The facts were not really
facts, so the conclusion was not justified.

Deductive Argument:

Definition: A deductive reasoning definition is based on major premise, a minor premise and a
conclusion.

One of the strongest examples of deductive reasoning offered by one of the jurors was that
witnesses are credible for their testimony because they swear under oath and don't tell lies but
tell the truth. The major premise is that humans are not perfect, they can make mistakes without
acknowledging them. The minor premise is that the two witnesses are human, therefore, the
conclusion is that they can make mistakes. When a person stands in court under oath and swears
to tell the truth, that doesn't qualify that everything a person says is the truth. The testimony may
be affected by unrelated events that happened in the past which cause the witness to be confused
between the past and the present event. Events that witnesses acknowledge but are not sure of
may cause them to believe in something that they think is positively clear. Mistakes may occur
when people are assuming like that. When one of the jurors yelled out, "I am going to kill you"
to another juror, it doesn't mean that he is really going to kill that juror. It's just a figurative word.
If you believe that the boy killed his father for saying that he would do so, then that means that
one of the juror is going to kill the other one. Therefore, making a remark or a figure of speech
doesn't mean it will turn into action.

Page 4 of 10
The deductive argument used to refute the testimony of the witnesses was very strong in the
movie. The major premise that witnesses are human and can be wrong is easy to prove true. The
two witnesses are human in their weaknesses and in their desire to look good. And it turned out
that the witnesses observed wrongly.

Argumentation (Here “#” represents the Juror Numbers)

FOR “GUILTY”
 The woman across the street saw the killing and identified the defendant as the killer.
Conclusion: he's guilty.
 The man downstairs said he heard the boy yell out, "I'll kill you," and a second later
heard the body fall to the floor. He went to his door and saw the boy running out of the
apartment building. Conclusion: he's guilty.
 The owner of the pawn shop where the boy had bought a knife said it was very unusual
and looked just like the murder weapon. Conclusion: he's guilty.
 The boy can't produce his own knife to show it's not the murder weapon. Conclusion: he's
guilty.
 The boy can't support his alibi. No one saw him at the theater and he couldn't identify the
movie he saw. Conclusion: he's guilty.
 Neighbors heard the boy and his father arguing earlier that evening. Conclusion: he had a
motive.
 "Kids from slum backgrounds are violent," "’those people’ don't respect life," "kids these
days don't respect their parents," Conclusion: he's guilty.

Argumentation for “NOT GUILTY”

 #5 says he grew up in the slums, but that doesn't mean he's violent. Conclusion: The kid's
background is not strong evidence about him as an individual.
 #8 found a very similar knife in a pawn shop in the boy's neighborhood. Conclusion: The
knife is not as unusual as the shop owner said.
 #8 concludes from the woman's testimony and the downstairs neighbor's testimony that
the man downstairs claims to have identified the boy's voice while the train was roaring
past his window. Conclusion: He probably couldn't identify the voice.
 #9 notices that the downstairs neighbor is "a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man" who
now feels very valuable and respected. Conclusion: He could make himself believe he
saw the boy and recognized his face.
 #8 comments that many people use the phrase "I'll kill you" without really meaning it.
Conclusion: It's not strong evidence that the boy really did intend to kill his father.
 #8 notes that the boy had a bad lawyer. Conclusion: he could have had a stronger defense
with another lawyer.
 #11 notes that, if the boy were guilty, he wouldn't have left the identifiable knife there; he
certainly wouldn't have bothered to wipe off the fingerprints but then leave the knife
stuck in his father's chest. If he were guilty, he wouldn't come back at 3:00 am and walk
right into the entry hall of the apartment building filled with police. Conclusion: he's
probably not guilty.
 #8 demonstrates that it would probably take more than 30 seconds for the old man
downstairs to get to his front door. Conclusion: He probably didn't see the boy clearly
leaving the building.

Page 5 of 10
  #8 demonstrates with #4 that it can be difficult to remember details of a movie you've
seen. Conclusion: The boy's inability to remember the movie he saw is understandable.
 #5 demonstrates how anyone who knows how to handle a switch-blade knife would stab
underhanded. Conclusion: It's unlikely the boy did the stabbing, since it was overhanded.
Rhetorical Questions and Analysis:

1. While Juror #10 asks “What are we sitting here for?” Juror #8 states that “I just think we
owe him a few words that’s all.” After telling Juror #8 he believes they don’t owe the accused
a thing, Juror #10 makes a small speech: “You’re not going to tell me that we’re supposed to
believe this kid knowing what he is? Listen I’ve lived among them all my life you can’t
believe a word they say you know that. I mean, they’re born liars.” Juror #10. The Juror #9
responds by saying, “Only an ignorant man can believe that” and that’s the last we hear of
Juror #10’s prejudice for a while.

2. “I have always thought ... in this country a man was entitled to have unpopular opinions.”
Juror# 11, a German immigrant, consistently reminds the other jurors of American ideals. A
statement like this would be particularly meaningful to an audience made up largely of those
who had lived through or fought in World War II.

3. "Kids from slum backgrounds are violent," "’those people’ don't respect life,” This stated
Racism that the Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. This
stereotyping of children from disadvantaged backgrounds plays a significant role in the jury's
deliberations. Several of the jurors express similar beliefs. In this case, it is Juror 4, the logical
and well-spoken stockbroker, yet the idea he expresses is not drastically different from Juror
10's racist rantings.

4. “You want to see this boy die because you personally want it.” Juror 8 hurls this criticism at
Juror 3. Later Juror 3 suggests that Juror 8 baited him, trying to anger him on purpose. That is
possible, but Juror 8 has also touched on something true about Juror 3: he has a personal
desire to punish this defendant.

5. “They're violent, they're vicious, they're ignorant, and they will cut us up.”
This is one part of Juror 10's racist diatribe in Act 2. He accuses "those people"—the
unspecified ethnic group to which the defendant belongs—of many things. He believes that
executing the defendant will mean one less of "those people" to cause problems in the world.
His statements deeply offend most of the other jurors.

Page 6 of 10
 Take Away Lessons For Logical & Critical Thinking
(Character wise from the Movie)
Juror #1 (Foreman; coach):
Egocentric: More concerned about how he’s perceived as foreman/leader than about the case.
Over-reacts to being disrespected, easily intimidated, insecure.

Juror #2 (Bank clerk; The voice of Piglet):

Weak: Not courageous enough to stand up to the group. His weakness not only prevents him
from speaking up, it also seems to keep him from thinking things through as well as he could. At
the beginning, for example, he explains his vote of guilty by saying, “I don’t know, I just thought
he was guilty.”
Smart and interested in finding the truth: His weakness makes him a follower, but he knows
enough to follow the better arguments, not the worse. He’s objective enough by the end of the
film to be a critical thinker but not strong enough to put it into action, hence not an excellent
critical thinker all things considered.
Juror #3 (Angry, “excitable” juror):
Emotional Interference: Makes the case too personal, blatantly contradicts himself repeatedly.
This juror does not have the intellectual capacity or the self-control to be a critical thinker. His
emotions are a problem for critical thinking not because they are emotions but because he has
emotional problems. He seems to be engaged in transference.

Juror #4 (Stock Broker):

Intelligent, IQ: Despite the gross generalization about “kids from slum backgrounds,” he’s a
very bright, analytical thinker – probably the best of the twelve at organizing and explaining all
the evidence for the prosecution.
Not Emotional Enough, Lacking EQ: Too detached and perhaps too analytical and unfeeling
about “kids from slum backgrounds” and human behavior generally. He has the intellect to be a
critical thinker but not the emotional engagement or feeling for other people to be a well-rounded
critical thinker.
Juror #5 (Grew up in the slums):
Weak, Insecure early on: Early on, he’s trying hard not to stick out, he wants to fit in with the
group of mostly respectable men. Starts out quite vulnerable to the bandwagon effect, going
along with the crowd. He develops confidence, however, as the deliberations proceed and
becomes a fairly intelligent and strong critical thinker.
Relevant Background Knowledge: His distinctive background adds a little diversity to the jury
and ends up providing concrete, relevant, beneficial insight into how a switchblade knife would
be used.

Page 7 of 10
Juror #8 (Wears a white suit; Architect):
Excellent critical thinker, no significant critical thinking lapses or gaps. (Well, one possible
complaint is that he was willing to go along with a guilty verdict if there were still 11 votes for
guilty in the secret, written ballot.)
He scores well on all aspects of critical thinking.
• IQ: analytical intelligence narrowly construed.
• EQ: emotional “intelligence,” or emotional awareness.
• Social Intelligence. He knows how to approach each juror to maximal effect.
• He’s intuitive: begins with nothing more than a “feeling” that something isn’t quite.
• Concern/interest: Paying attention to details in the proceedings.
• Curiosity: willingness to explore.
• Observation skills: Observes others with his intuition and analyzes others’ behavior.
• Logical skills: piecing together two pieces of testimony for Logical analysis.
• Impartiality/lack of personal bias.
• Willingness to question the obvious.
•Patience/Taking his time/resisting a rush to judgment.
• Resistance to groupthink/bandwagon/courage to stand alone.

Juror #10 (Old man with head cold):

Egocentrism (self-centered thinking): "I got three garages going to pot while you're arguing."
Stereotyping, Racism: A prejudiced bigot, guilty of rampant over-generalizations.
Emotional Interference: There is emotional interference in that he is generally bitter, cranky,
and afraid of the “danger” that “those people” present. Among all the emotions, fear is the most
consistently a trouble-maker for clear, critical thinking.

Juror #11 (Foreign accent; wears suspenders; watchmaker):

Objectivity, Impartiality: Flexible, open-minded, questioning. His greatest critical thinking
characteristic is his objectivity, not feeling any commitment to one “side” versus another, he
understands that the design of the jury system is supposed to bring out that kind of impartiality.
He has a willingness to follow the best arguments wherever they lead.
Good Reasoning: "Digs deeper."

Juror #12 (Advertising man):

Egocentrism: in the sense of being self-absorbed. Wants to be the focus, talks about himself,
only partly engaged in the deliberations of the jury.
Superficial thinking: His self-absorption and lack of focus on the case explain his flip-flopping
from guilty to not guilty to guilty and back to not guilty.
References for assignment:
https://dmulderct.weebly.com/12angrynotes.html
https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetoric-in-12-angry-men-film-by-sidney-lumet/
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/12-angry-men-script-screenplay-pdf-download/
https://www.ipl.org/essay/12-Angry-Men-Rhetorical-Analysis-F39RJ8NFJ48R
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/192572/1/192572.pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED420084.pdf
https://www.cram.com/essay/Rhetorical-Analysis-12-Angry-Men/PKP3WPSY7MWW
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013_12_angry_men/quotes/
https://www.gradesaver.com/12-angry-men/study-guide/quotes

Page 8 of 10
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-12-angry-men-1957
https://medium.com/cinemania/12-angry-men-review-and-analysis-92d513db8a03

Page 9 of 10