12 Angry Men Worksheet The purpose of this exercise by vcl99353

VIEWS: 402 PAGES: 2

									                                       12 Angry Men Worksheet

The purpose of this exercise is to tie in concepts from the Writing Arguments textbook with the
argumentative strategies used by the jurors in 12 Angry Men.

For the purpose of this exercise, we will refer to the characters as such:
Lemmon: first juror to vote Not Guilty
Tony Danza: Baseball ticket guy
Hume Cronyn: the oldest man with a cane
Watchmaker: the guy from stand and deliver–eastern european
Jury foreman: African-American man at the head of the table
Working man: the caucasian man seated next to Tony Danza
Ad guy: the one that liked to doodle–sitting to the direct right of foreman
hat guy: the African-American man who freaked out at the end
George C. Scott: the caucasian man who really freaked out at the end (he has a son)
Grandpa: older African-American man with gray hair
Glasses guy: the caucasian man who was rubbing his nose because of his glasses.
Knife guy: the African-American man from the slums who demonstrated how the knife should be
used.


Chapter 1

1. How does Jack Lemmon’s argument adhere to our textbook’s definition of an argument?
2. Does he use an explicit argument or an implicit one? Explain.
3. What are the 2 necessary conditions that must be met before we’re willing to call something an
argument? Does Lemmon’s argument meet these conditions?
4. How was Lemmon’s argument both a process and a product? Explain.
5. Who is Lemmon most like: Callicles or Socrates? Explain.

Chapter 2
*For the purpose of this set of questions, we will refer to the evidence and trial as a “text.”

1. How did Lemmon “read” the evidence as a believer? As a doubter?
2. What sources of disagreement emerged in the jury’s deliberation?
3. Why is accepting ambiguity valuable? Which jury members were the most willing to accept
ambiguity? Did it strengthen or weaken their arguments?

Chapter 3

1. How does Lemmon’s argument reflect the textbook’s goals for writing an argument?
2. In what way was the jury’s deliberation “recursive”?
3. Do you believe that the trial consisted of two opposing sides only? What sub-issues do you think
were present in the jury’s deliberation? Explain.
4. In what way was Lemmon’s argument structured like a classical argument? Explain.

Chapter 4

1. Using the rhetorical triangle model, place characters from the movie in the appropriate corners.
2. At the beginning of the deliberation, was the question of guilt an issue question or an information
question? Did it remain that way, or did it change? Explain.
3. Do you believe any of the jurors were fanatical believers or fanatical skeptics? Which ones?
Explain your answer.
4. In one sentence, write Lemmon’s initial claim.
5. Give 2 or more of the reasons Lemmon presented (written as because clauses) to support his claim.

Chapter 5

1.   According to the text, was Lemmon’s argument a “real-world” argument? Explain.
2.   Write Lemmon’s initial enthymeme.
3.   List 2-3 possible assumptions (warrants) that Lemmon made.
4.   What grounds does Lemmon present?
5.   What backing does Lemmon present?
6.   Did Lemmon use a qualifier? If so, what was it?
7.   Take one other juror’s argument (besides Lemmon’s) and place it in the Toulmin schema.

Chapter 6

1. Describe a scene from the movie in which a character used personal experience as evidence. Was
it an effective argument? Why or why not?
2. Describe a scene from the movie in which a character used observation as evidence. Was it an
effective argument? Why or why not?
3. Was there any expert testimony given in the trial? Was it effective/ Why or why not?

Chapter 7

1. For this question, Jack Lemmon is the writer/speaker and the rest of the men are the audience.
Turn to page 136 and answer questions 2-5
2. Do you believe Lemmon established ethos? How? Be specific. (Refer to page 141)
3. Did any of the jurors use visual arguments? What were they, and were they effective?

Chapter 8

1. Was Lemmon using a one-sided argument or a multi-sided one? Explain your answer.
2. What is the principle of charity and did any of the jurors use this in their arguments? Which ones?
3. In refuting an argument you may rebut any or all of the following: reason, grounds, warrant and
backing. How did Lemmon rebut each of these elements? Be specific. (Refer to 161-162)
4. Did Lemmon use Rogerian argument? Explain your answer.


Appendix 1: Informal Fallacies (pages 431-443)

1. Did any of the characters commit fallacies of Pathos? Which characters and which fallacies?
2. Did any of the characters commit fallacies of Ethos? Which characters and which fallacies?
3. Did any of the characters commit fallacies of Logos? Which characters and which fallacies?

								
To top