Get Help With Your Essay
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."
This is a complex, analytical essay writing assignment involving what you have learned from the chapters you have studied so far. It will be an essay presenting, analyzing, and reflecting on the arguments, specific impediments to critical thinking, biases, heuristics, and fallacies that are depicted in the video “LIVE TV RESTORATION: Twelve Angry Men – Studio One (Original 1954 Broadcast)” on YouTube. Give this assignment significant time and attention to produce quality, original work. Treating it as a draft or weekend assignment would be a mistake. Instead, treat it as a kind of term paper, so get started as soon as you can and ask for help as soon as you need it.
Prepare for this essay by completing questions 1-7 in “Exercise 6.1, Part VI” in “Chapter 6” of our textbook. However, rather than watching the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, you will be watching the “LIVE TV RESTORATION . . .” version on YouTube. Your typed and cited answers for questions 1-7 in “Exercise 6.1 Part IV” will be notes to support your analysis in your essay. For question 2 you may want to create a chart to identify each juror by name or by number to become familiar with the jurors as you watch the video LIVE TV RESTORATION: Twelve Angry Men – Studio One (Original 1954 Broadcast) Links to an external site..
You will be looking for dialogue among the characters in the video that indicates or imply a bias described in Bassham et al.’s chapter 1 and for fallacies defined and exemplified in chapters 5 and 6. You have the option of working on Rose’s scriipt or the “Live TV Restoration . . . ” video. You will identify the impediments, biases, and fallacies evident in the dialogue by name, quote the dialogue that specifically represents them, and cite them by the page number of the scriipt (Rose 3) or by timestamp from the video (Live TV Restoration 3:05-3:40).
Below is an example of what examining dialogue for biases looks like cited by scriipt pages:
Often, what someone says provides clues to the assumptions upon which we make our decisions and judgments. In the tv scriipt of 12 Angry Men, for example, although the responsibility of jurors is to decide whether a young man is guilty of murder or not, Juror 7 is apparently interested in doing something else. As the jurors sit down to begin their deliberations, he says, “Right. This better be fast.’ I’ve got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight. I must be the only guy in the whole world who hasn’t seen it yet” (Rose 3). It is obvious that the juror is more interested in seeing the show, which is the likely motivation for then stating, “Let’s vote now. Who knows, maybe we can all go home” (Rose 4). The juror seems optimistic, as if a conclusion regarding a verdict is easily determined. This optimism appears to rely on an assumption that the other jurors have reached the same conclusion as he has, without hearing any other opinions on a verdict, yet. This is an unwarranted assumption. Such assumptions, according to Bassham et al., are things we “believe to be true without any proof or conclusive evidence” (16). So, Juror 7’s self-interest leads him to make an unwarranted assumption that all the jury has reached the same conclusion without having asked them about it.
As you can see from the preceding paragraph, this process of examination and analysis includes the following:
The context or situation of what will be discussed
the introduction of dialogue suspected of demonstrating a bias or heuristic,
the reasoning about the possible bias or heuristic being illustrated,
the evidence that confirms the bias, like a definition that fits what the dialogue expresses,
a conclusion summing up the connection between dialogue and bias or heuristic
the parenthetical citations identifying the location of evidence and indicating where that evidence ends and our own analysis and conclusions begin,
the discussion of a specific bias or heuristic in its own paragraph (not lumping them together into one paragraph).
Finally, because writing this analytical paper must include a discussion of arguments, biases, heuristics, and fallacies, you will have to compose your paper with particular sections addressing each part before ending with your reflections,
As an academic paper, it must be organized as follows:
an introduction to the subject with a strong thesis statement,
background information about arguments, cognitive biases, and fallacies,
a well-organized, supported, and complete analysis of the arguments, biases, heuristics, and fallacies exhibited by the characters:
One part will identify and discuss the jurors’ arguments for or against the young man’s guilt.
Another will examine and identify their biases and heuristics.
Another will examine and identify fallacies in their arguments.
Your thoughtful reflections about how these dramatic depictions of the deliberative process reflect the real consequences of thinking and not thinking critically. These reflections should be based on the “Exercise 6.1, Part VI” questions 1-7 in “Chapter 6” of our textbook.
MLA documentation style introduction of sources, parenthetical (in-text) citations, and formatting,
A works cited bibliography of the sources that went into your paper
Well-composed paragraphs and grammatically correct sentences