Monday, March 2, 2015
A6 - MacKenzie
In "Twelve Angry Men" the jurors should have tested others opinions, questioned their assumptions and drawn their own conclusions during the process of figuring out if the boy was guilty or not guilty because doing so would have really made them think independently and deeply about what they were saying and hearing. If you draw your own conclusions based on the things you heard from others really makes you think. Questioning others also really makes you deeply think because you have to ask yourself if you agree or disagree with what someone else is saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your statement, but without Juror 8 persuading the other jurors his thoughts the play wouldn't have ended how it had. If they were to all just sit and think none of the jurors would've thought thoroughly about the old man lying, the knife, and the woman in the el train. Without the arguments no one would've agreed the same. I do agree with listening to someone else's thoughts and comments and thinking strongly into them.
ReplyDelete