12 Angry Men

The first example of a illusion is when one of the jurors remarked that the male individual child must be viciousnessy because nobody rised incompatible . This is fundamentally an argument from ignorance because it makes an assumption based on no testifyn facts . It argues that guilt is based on the failure to prove otherwise which is wrong from the point of view of logic and the lawThe admit instance is when it is argued that one of the witnesses heard the accused scream I ll kill you despite the fact that there was a grow roaring by . This is illogical because it would be extremely gravid to hear from across the tracks when a train is passing byThe troika instance is when one of the jurors claims that you can t trust anything they say when referring to the affidavit of the defendant . The bigotry in this statement springs from a false belief in relating certain stereo types with a certain gentile group . It is a phantasm because of the lack of sufficient groundwork for much(prenominal) statementThe fourth instance is when one of the jurors claims that when a person says I ll kill you he means it . This was proven to be a fallacy when he is able to get the person to scream the same words later on This is a seduce of a hasty generalization with no hind end at allThe fifth fallacy is when it is shown that the wound was downward scarce given the circumstances and the boy s proficiency with a characterization knife knife , the wound would have to be up , opposed to what was found in the autopsy . This is another form of fallacy because it immediately assumes without verifying the veracity of the informationThe sixth fallacy is when the indignant juror states that all the evidence can be impel out because there was a woman who aphorism him pluck the crime . T his is an example of an inconsistent fallacy! because a ace witness does not necessarily prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt . There must be other evidence to support the testimonyThe seventh fallacy is when the godforsaken juror again argues that the person who saw the crime existence move might not have had her render on . This is basically a red herring fallacy because such promontory is not relevant . A person who necessitate render to see would never claim to have seen anything if the glasses were not on the personThe eighth fallacy occurs when the housepainter juror states that agent is demand for the case . He states that If you don t have a motive , where s your case . This is an example of a false substitute fallacy because the law has consistently held that motive is not the ancient love in a murder case . It may be important but it is not absolutely essentialThe ordinal fallacy occurs when the salesman with the baseball tickets states that What s there to talk about ? eleven of us in here th ink...If you want to get a plenteous essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay