Re: [English] [Text Response] [Feedback]Twelve angry men shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing the human-decision making process. Discuss Reginald Rose, in the play Twelve Angry Men, portrays the susceptibility of the judicial system to a variety of factors; in that the ‘decision-making process’ undertaken by the twelve jurors, which is the manner in which jurors deliberate their verdict, is shown to be largely affected by the personal experience- which is their background and the relationships they have formed in their personal lives, giving rise to the prejudices of the jury.
You could provide your interpretation of the key words in a more sophisticated manner (mostly the second part - thre are better ways to write than through the use of a dash in formal writing). While this is the case, the lack of responsibility, a factor that distracts the jury to a lesser extent, of some jurors disallows them to deliberate a reasonable and fair trial and hence, restrict them from fulfilling their legal obligation
The amount of clauses in this sentence wrecks your flow (and clarity). In addition, Rose also presents the notion of the jury changing their stance on the case as they are swayed, by the inconsistencies covered in the evidence, to vote ‘not guilty’
Same thing for clarity - what are you trying to say?. Ultimately, the deliberation of the jury is shown to be influenced by elements such as personal investment in the case, the prejudice held against the accused and the lack of responsibility shown by some jurors.
This is a decent thesis statement, but I think you should try to shift more toward your interpretation of the prompt on a basic level (thus contention in relation to the prompt). That said, I also think your interpretation of the prompt could be a little more broad. I think you've narrowed the human decision making process down to the jury, however, perhaps Rose is commenting on the human decision making process as a whole, using the jury as a tool to inform his comments. Does that make sense?Rose depicts the decision-making of the jury to be largely dominated by the influence of personal lives, of each individual juror
That comma shouldn't be there. Rose depicts the personal lives of the jurors to be highly influential in their decision making process. My sentence <-- is also a bit clearer than your sentence, because mine doesn't refer backwards whereas yours does. (More simply, avoid writing in past tense (dominat-ed). Also see Twelve Angry Men Practice Essays. for the way I liked my topic sentences. . This is evidenced by the third juror’s desire to punish the subject of the trial, who he claims to be ‘a goddamn rotten kid’, as this allows him to relieve his own frustrations that are a result of his personal history with his son
I'm not sure if this is an overused thing, but my teacher liked 'vicarious punishment' with 3rdJ. I do, too. So, "This is evidence by the Third Juror's (please God use capital letters at the start of his name) subconscious desire to vicariously punish his son through the defendant because of his personal history". .
Instead of attempting to attain reasonable doubt for the innocence of the boy reasonable doubt for the innocence?, the 3rd juror simply assumes that the accused is at fault’;
this is evidenced Find a better way of integrating your evidence into your essays. I guess the simplest way for you to do this would be to copy the way other people have done it. I'll maybe go find an essay and scan it to show you what i mean.by juror 3’s claims regarding the accused: ‘I know him.
What they’re like. What they do to you,’ leading him to believe that the
case is ‘clear-cut’ This is great use of evidence. The 3rd juror’s longing to punish the accused
Phrasing, again. Also. "highlighted" -> shift to highlights, somehow. --- Rose highlights this subconscious desire through Third Juror's assertion that he is "one of [the kid's executioners] --- is highlighted when he is asked whether he is ‘the kid’s executioner’, and the man answers- ‘I’m one of em’.’ Moreover, the 10th juror is shown to be strongly affected by his background of living among
st slum-dwellers, and since the accused is from an underprivileged minority
Hmm.. his background of living among slum-dwellers? Could you justify this? My perception of J10 is of a racist (and I think I could make a good case for this), with could be caused by personal experience, but not necessarily dwelling in slums., this aspect causes the 10th juror to unfairly generalise that accused as ‘one of them’-
Again, use of dash. Try to use it sparingly (i know how tempting it is -- I used them in my essays right until the very end, just less and less as I got betterthat is, part of the group of people who
are ‘don’t need any big excuse to kill someone’ and are ‘born to lie’.
Again, great example of well integrated evidence The bias, against the race of the accused, is uncovered to be the prominent reason behind the 10th juror choosing to initially deliver the verdict of ‘guilty
JUSTIFYJUSTIFYFJUSTIFY!!!! -> this also seems to make your previous writing slightly redundant. Why mention slum-dwelling which isn't really explicit in the text at all? (as far as I can remember, anyway, happy to be proven wrong).’ Through jurors three and ten
Through Juror Three and Juror Ten - treat them as their names. This is why I referred to them as "Eighth Juror" in the same way I'd write "Harry Potter". , Rose presents the notion of how the personal lives, hence the developed prejudices, of individual jurors might interfere with the verdict that they deliver
. "Through the use of" seems a normal discussion statement, you want your last line to be more powerful and say "Because of what I just wrote, the statement I am no making must be true". (which lends itself nicely to 'hence', 'therefore', 'ultimately'. Or you could forego those words and just write a powerful statement. ", hence the developed prejudices," --> I think you like using commas in this way to provide the clarifications on your writing. But the idea that your writing needs clarification means that something was written unclear in the first place. Try to make everything clear in the first place and only use those 'clarifying' commas stylistically and when necessary, or when it actually IS making your writing clearer, because it sorts of detracts from the clarity in that last sentence. (Don't worry, i really, really, really love using the 'clarifying' commas, too). You pick some really good evidence and hit the 'textual knowledge' criteria pretty well. The general expression of your writing could be improved. You have a solid grasp of the text but could demonstrate a more complex understanding or anlaysis. While the personal background of jurors, hence their formed prejudices,
hehe prominently impact the verdict they deliberate, the sense of responsibility of some jurors influences their ability to fairly try the accused
Not fully sure what you're saying. If you're saying what I think you're saying, just saying the last clause would be clearer than the sentence you have at the moment. More ideally, including the thing you're distinguishing from in a clearer way.. Rose presents
characterises the 7th juror as a lazy character who is unwilling to partake in the case or attain reasonable doubt throughout the play
i think this lacks complexity, as the ambiguities of the case are unravelled
my google chrome thing tells me there is jut one 'l' in unraveled. by the jury’s discussion. The traits of the seventh juror’s character are highlighted when he ‘offers chewing gum’ to other jurors, in a manner that typifies his lazy-minded behaviour and he is already shown to be distracted from the case.
Yeah, shallow analysis again, I think. Check your pm box btw.This is also evidenced in the initial stages of the play, where juror 7 ‘looks at his watch’ wanting to be free of jury obligation in time for a baseball game, as ‘baseball tickets are burning a hole in his pocket’
These stage directions are such great evidence, but I think you've 'missed' juror seven a bit. I think he's more of an embodiment of the obnoxious, selfish person (stereotypical baseball American fan. Could swear he's from Boston).. also "burning a hole in his pocket" --- is this mentioned anywhere in the play? :S, if it isn't, you would 100% never use cliches or metaphors etc in your writing - it shows you don't have a better way to phrase it.. Even when the baseball game is rained out due to a storm, he still seeks to escape his social responsibility, so much so that he changes his vote to ‘not guilty’ just because he is ‘a little sick of this whole thing’
Yes but this isn't true, is it? Don't cheat the text to suit your argument.. Therefore, his lack of participation in the case’s discussion can be mainly attributed to his character being void of any sense of responsibility. In contrast, it is through
Remain consistent in the way you phrase the jurorsjuror eight’s fulfilment of his social responsibility that causes his character to willingly make an effort to deliberate fairly; unlike the 7th juror, this character avidly partakes in the jury’s discussion in exposing the ambiguities of the case. Upon entering the jury room, juror 8 is shown to be in deep thought over the case; staring at the New York Skyline, which serves as a reminder of his responsibilities as a juror and a citizen of the society.
Brilliant! I always thought him looking out the window was a symbol for objectivity, (he can also be seen to be 'standing, looking at the other jurors', which I always attributed to objectivity, but I really love this perception of the skyline! Thank you ... I think it would also be better to quote the stage direction, though Right from the start,
juror 8 The inconsistency is making me what to smash my face with a blunt object is shown to be focussed
one 's' in focused. Also, 'right form the start' and 'from the beginning of the play' are really great ways for you to start telling the story instead of analysing it at the task of carrying out a fair trial and can be viewed as the most responsible man on the jur
y, this is evident as he makes the jurors realise the gravity of their roles as jurors of the law, through his reminder- ‘It’s not easy for me… to send a boy off to die without talking about it first’.
Previous sentence sounds pretty sloppy to me. Give it a re-readThe efforts that the eight
eighth. Eighth, eighth, eighth juror goes to,
<-- no commain order to deliberate as fairly as possible, are highlighted when juror 8 reveals that he ‘paid a visit to the boy’s neighbourhood’ in order to prove that knife used in the murder is accessible; even going to the lengths of ‘[breaking] the law’ through the purchase of a knife that is similar to the weapon of murder.
I love the evidence you used. (probably because it is quite similar to the evidence I used) The fulfilment of his social responsibility further enhances his ability to attain reasonable doubt, therefore ultimately influencing his decision-making regarding the case. Rose correlates the fulfilment or lack of responsibility shown by the jury, with how effectively the twelve jurors are able to carry out the decision-making process and hence fairly try the boy.
I think you'd need a stronger signpost to say "Not only personal experience, but sense of responsibility" -> because the way you've gone about this at the moment just looks like you're straying from the prompt. A valiant effort, though.The 'discussion' feel is really good in this paragraph, not as formulaic or robotic as many text response essays turn out, but the sophistication of the writing itself needs to be jacks up a bit. Pay really close attention to your grammar. Great use of evidence. Great ideas. Although the personal lives of the jurors may be a strong factor in affecting the manner in which the jury deliberates, the discrepancies in evidence uncovered also persuade the jurors to change their stance on the case. The eight juror critically views the evidence, to which most jurors initially refer to as ‘facts’, presented in court and highlights the inconsistencies in the testimonies delivered during the trial. This is shown when juror 8
is alleges proof read.that colloquialisms such as the ones heard from the fights between the accused and the murdered, ‘I’ll kill you’, should not be taken literally
most of the times, he
highlights this idea to the jury through angering the third juror until he reaches his breaking point and exclaims- ‘I’ll kill you’. Green could be expressed with more sophisticationFurthermore, through the self-reflection of juror 9, the jury is given an insight over what may be psychologically motivating the old witness to falsely-testify against the accused-
turn this dash into a comma. from now on, you try to avoid dashes. in that the 9th juror
sees a similarity between himself and the has an empathetic understanding of the witness, who is claim
ed to be a person who ‘needs to be recognised’. When juror 9’s claims are
backed up way informal, damaging your sophistication again. 'reinforced' 'strengthened' 'validated' by juror 8 challenging
try to avoid words ending in 'ing' and structure your sentenced in a way that it would be 'challenges', instead. It makes your writing punchier. whether the witness would’ve
would have. sophistication thing, againbeen able to reach his apartment door in given time, the jury is positioned to discredit the old man’s testimony and hence, the verdict of five other jurors are influenced and changed to ‘not guilty’ during the third vote. Likewise, more jurors are progressively able to attain reasonable doubt as the inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies are brought to the attention of the jury, hence influencing the verdict of individual jurors and making them collectively deliver a unanimous vote.
Very nice paragraph except for some sophistication and grammar things.Rose presents the decision-making process undertaken by each juror
, in order to reach their verdict, to be adjusted according to the factors influencing it. Out of these external influences, the strongest one is shown to be the bigoted views of jurors, arising from their personal lives. Although this might be the case, the varying sense of responsibility in each juror and the inconsistencies uncovered throughout the play, are also prominently shown to contribute to the manner in which the jurors arrive upon their final verdicts. Nonetheless, these influences are eventually negated upon the arrival of a just unanimous vote, highlighting the beauty of the American judicial system in the 1950s.
Just a sophistication of expression thing in this conc. Decent conc.
Overall, your essay needs 'refining'. This is a better position to be in that to be trying to make formulaic paras sound like they're a discussion etc. You need to refine your grammar, refine your expression/clarity, and continue to delve into deeply analysing 12AM. Your textual knowledge is excellent, and I'd put you in the top range for the evidence that has been used, but you wouldn't make the top range for the way it has been written.