can someone check how I'm going for this unfinished essay? twelve angry men

[BigAl]

I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. thanks.
last year second topic.

There are many elements in Twelve Angry Men that serve to address the text’s themes of decision making and legal justice. Reginald Rose utilises these various elements to challenge the audience in order to consider issues such as why it is difficult for the jurors to reach a final verdict. While prejudice, perception of the facts, personal experiences and stubbornness lead the case to much complexity, the 3rd Juror’s personal involvement in the case makes it very hard for the jurors from finalising a verdict.

The perception of ‘facts’ diverts the whole course of the play: delaying process in reaching a final verdict. The word ‘fact’ is loosely tossed in the room without much though about its meaning. Very frequently statements such as “You’ve heard the facts” and “You can’t refute the facts” are uttered and not followed up with any detail about what those facts are. When facts are detailed, they appear to be convincing and thus easing the process of reaching a final verdict. On the other hand, the disclosure of an identical knife by the 8th Juror demonstrates how a fact might turn out to be not true while the 3rd Juror considers the case one of ‘open-shut cases’ by his ‘personal facts’. He is so attached to the case because of his desire to punish the defendant due to his feeling of anger and betrayal towards his son. This feeling leads him to personalising the facts. Additionally, the word ‘fact’ is gradually stripped of its power by the time it is used by the 10th juror to describe stereotyped characteristics of particular socio-economic groups: “Let’s talk facts. They don’t know what the truth is. They think different. They act different. Well, that’s right.” Hence, ‘facts’ in this speech entirely become a tool in imposing malicious intentions as stated by the 11 the Juror, “Facts may be coloured by the personalities of people who present them.” In essence then, perception of facts from the 3rd juror to 10the Juror is one of the great obstructions in reaching a final verdict.

[nisha]

Just skimmed, but here I go.
Things I would bring up:::
-> First sentence tells me nothing. Not a great sentence to be starting with. Needs to be sharper and more to the point
-> Intro is too short. Doesn't tell me cohenrently what points you will discuss
->Never mentioned Human fallibility as a factor in your intro, but you talk about it in B1
->TOO MUCH PLOT SUMMARY. I cannot stress this enough. Most of B1 is plot, plot plot. You are not telling me why Rose has constructed the play so that the final verdict needs to be deliberated with difficulty, and why this outcome is significant. Focus on Rose rather than what happens. You need to structure the piece more, so I can follow it up.
This piece will not get a very high mark, so redraft.

[BigAl]

I give up by now. I spent too much time for studying 12 A.M. Need to focus on LA as well...no time left..thanks anyway. I will be happiest person in the world if I get a study score of 32. I don't understand..my teacher is expecting an A from me  and this one here is totally something else...

[nisha]

Dude, I realise you are doing ESL, but don't quit. ESL is more lenient in their marking scheme.
Just focus on one thing at a time. Now. Write one essay a day on 12 ANGRY MEN-> with no plot summary at all, and expand your ideas. Draw a mindmap of all your opinions on why each juror did what and how this shows Rose's intentions. It becomes easier.