Essay

N*** (student’s last name) 1

J.N.

10/26/16

English 102

Prof. Davis

Persuasion Can Save a Life [the student correctly uses MLA format: font, spacing, running head, heading, title]

One of the most useful skills a person can have is the ability to turn an argument to his or

her favor. [opening catches reader’s attention] In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a

character tries to do just that. There are twelve [spell out low numbers] jurors who must decide

the fate of a teenager accused of killing his father. There are several pieces of evidence, and most

of the jurors are bent on a guilty verdict. However, Juror 8 refuses to assume the teenager is guilty

without thoroughly examining the evidence. He then uses several rhetorical techniques to persuade

his fellow jurors that his conclusions are correct. [background on essay topic] By looking at the

way Juror 8 deconstructs each piece of evidence, just as he deconstructs the psyche of each juror,

we readers can understand his persuasive art. [thesis states purpose of essay]

First, let’s consider tone. [transitions to first topic sentence stating main idea of

paragraph: tone] Just by listening to someone’s vocal inflections, we can infer how he or she

feels. Even before the topic of discussing evidence is brought up, you can see Juror 3

sarcastically question why Juror 8 would even vote for a not guilty verdict in such a seemingly

obvious case. Juror 3 says, [signal phrase leads into quotation] “Somebody's in left field. (to

No. 8) You think he's not guilty?” [quotation is missing an MLA citation. Either the page #

of the script or the time of the film must be given] However, Juror 8 calmly replies, without

letting his emotions get the better of him—this is known as volume control. By replying in a

calm manner, people will respect you and are more likely to listen to what you say. [student’s

concluding sentence effectively wraps up the paragraph]

N*** (student’s last name) 2

Another instance of Juror 8’s calm demeanor playing a key role [again, transitions

fluidly to new topic sentence stating main idea of paragraph] is when he pulls out his own

switch blade that was identical to the murder weapon, after it was stated that the murder

weapon was one-of-a-kind. This presentation of the knife is an example of Kairos, timing.

Juror 3 immediately shouts out, “What are you trying to do?” At the same time, Juror 10 yells,

“Yeah, what is this? Who do you think you are?” Instead of responding back with his own

yelling, Juror 8 calmly proceeds to explain how the fact that the knife wasn’t one-of-a-kind

played an important role in the case. This calmness and practical wisdom reinforce Juror 8’s

phronesis in the eyes of his fellow jurors, so he gains their respect.

Juror 8 also uses another method of persuasion: ethos and eunoia. There are very many

cases where the other jurors bring their personal lives into the jury room. Juror 3 rants about his

son, saying, “I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight…I haven’t

seen him in three years. Rotten kid!” [missing MLA citation again] After this statement he acts

embarrassed, realizing how unprofessional he is being. Someone who is deciding the fate of a

man’s life should not ever let personal feelings get involved. On the other hand, Juror 8 never

brings his personal life into the equation, and always gets straight to the point. He keeps his

cool, and by being professional, we as the viewers are able to look at him as someone who

knows what he is there to do. The jurors in the play are able to see this as well.

In addition to using his calm character to persuade the jurors about his credibility, Juror 8

uses logos throughout most of the play to turn the argument in his favor. Many of the jurors

insist that he is wrong and that the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, after

reviewing some of the evidence again, they realize there is more beneath the surface, thanks to

Juror 8. For example, when they discuss how the old man that lives underneath the teenager and

his father. “The old man heard the boy say, "I'm going to kill you," and one second later he heard

N*** (student’s last name) 3

a body fall. One second. That's the testimony, right?” Juror 8 says. However, he goes on to use

logos by reexamining the fact that the el train passed by during the time of the murder. This is

also an example of phronesis. He explains to them that there was no way that the old man could

have heard the boy shouting those words if the el train was passing by at that time. Nobody

argues with him because it’s logical. He successfully eliminated one piece of evidence and

brought the jurors closer to his side. Another way he uses logos is when they examine the

evidence about the old lady that saw the boy commit the murder. The woman that testified says

that she wears glasses to see. Everyone assumed that because she said she saw the murder

happen, then it was absolute that she saw the boy kill his father. However, Juror 8 pinpoints the

flaw of this piece of evidence by saying, “Listen, she wasn't wearing them in bed. That's for sure.

She testified that in the midst of her tossing and turning she rolled over and looked casually out

the window.” After this, everyone realizes that if the lady didn’t have her glasses on she

wouldn’t have been able to identify who the murderer was. By finding the flaw in that argument,

Juror 8 was able to use logos to successfully convince the jury of the invalidity of that piece of

evidence, once again getting the jurors to agree with him.

Another strategy to win an argument is to use the opponent’s emotions against him.

Throughout the play, several of the jurors are shown displaying strong emotions. Juror 3 is no

exception. While arguing with Juror 8, he even threatens him by saying, “Let me go. I’ll kill

him! I’ll kill him!” Despite all of this, Juror 8 stays calm, and instead turns the slip of the tongue

against Juror 3, pointing out that if he could say something like that so carelessly, then anyone

else could have as well, effectively making Juror 3 look like a fool for being so angry and also

shaking the foundations of the evidence provided from the old man that heard the boy say he

was going to kill his father. In addition to again exhibiting volume control, Juror 8 uses the

N*** (student’s last name) 4

techniques of backfire and rhetorical jiu jitsu to undermine Juror 8. From that point on we can

see the jury starting to come onto Juror 8’s side because the votes are now even. Another case

when Juror 8 is able to use Juror 3’s anger against him is during one of Juror 3’s rants. When

asked if he would like to have the boy killed, he replies, “For this kid? You bet I'd like to pull

the switch!” He goes on to call Juror 3 a sadist, striking hard. This is an example of an effective

ad hominem attack. Afterwards, Juror 3 has nothing to say. The rant itself already caused the

rest of the jury to have doubts about Juror 3, but now after still remaining calm about everything

Juror 8 is able to call Juror 3 out on his sadism at the right moment, allowing the jury to come

onto his side. By keeping his cool and using his enemy’s anger against him, Juror 8 is able to

turn the jury.

[Remember that the essay needs to be 4.5 pages long, ending midway down page 5! Further

body paragraphs could address some or all of these missing elements:

• Juror 8’s body language, attire, concessio, dubitatio, rhetorical questions, decorum,

mood, blame, value, choice, virtue, litotes, proof, commonplace, induction, framing,

fallacy

The conclusion paragraph should summarize Juror 8’s role in the film and then offer your

critical commentary on the film—you’re practically an expert by now!]