When people argue something they do not always have the correct answer, but people

can persuade people because they are persuasive. In the play “twelve angry men” by Reginald
Rose twelve jurors argue over a case where a nineteen year old boy is convicted for killing his
father. If the kid was found guilty he would’ve been put to death, but they thought he was
innocent the boy would be let go. During the vote of the jury there was a 11-1 vote guilty to
innocent. The one juror that believed that that boy was innocent was known as juror eight. He
was able to convince everyone in that courtroom because he was moreover correct than he
was persuasive.
Juror 8 was mostly correct and not that persuasive. He was mostly correct because he
was able to prove that the testimonies that they listened to could have been lies. The testimony
for the old man was that he was in his bed when he heard the kid say “I AM GOING TO KILL
YOU” (28) gets out of his bed and goes to the door at the end of the hallway in 15 seconds, “a
man who’s had two strokes in the last 3 years” (28) though as juror eleven points out “he can
only walk very slowly.” They even had to help him get into the witness chair. After juror eight
does a test to prove that it would have at least taken the old man 40 seconds to get from his
bed to the stairs and even if the kid wiped the knife and ran out the door it would only have
taken him 30 seconds. Juror eight then makes this assumption of what happened, “the old
man had heard the fight between the boy and his father a few hours earlier”. Afterwards “while
lying in bed, he heard a body hit the floor in the boy's apartment, and he heard the woman
scream from across the street. He got up, he tried to get to the door, heard someone racing
down the stairs and assumed it was the boy.” Juror eight then started thinking about the
woman’s and said this “I don't know - I'm guessing! I'm also guessing that she probably didn't
put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window, and she herself
testified the killing took place just as she looked out, the lights went off a split second
later.”(61) Following that he says “she couldn’t have had the time to put them on!.” (61) Once
he makes that statement he was able to convince the last juror, (juror three) to say there was a
doubt and that the kid was innocent. This shows how juror eight was more correct than
persuasive.
Though on the other hand some may disagree and think that juror eight was more
persuasive than correct. Juror eight was able to prove that the kid was innocent based on tests
and theories that there was a doubt that the kid didn’t kill his father. As juror eight did he was
able to convince the entire jury that there was a doubt based on his own life experiences. He
convinced them based on how el trains were so loud that you even hear yourself think if you
lived next to them and one go by with the window open. Though that also is mainly true so it
also proves that he was correct in that matter and that is why he was persuasive. Before that
juror eight also was talking about how the kid lost his mom when he was nine and grew up in
the slums all his life, he wasn’t able to convince anybody then until he used facts because he
was correct to convince juror 9 to think that the boy is innocent.
In conclusion this is how juror eight was effective because he was primarily correct and
not persuasive. This essay shows how juror eight used tests, logic, prior knowledge and
experience to convince everyone in the jury to think there’s a reasonable doubt that the
nineteen year old boy wasn’t guilty. This is how juror 8 was primarily effective because he was
correct.
 TASK RUBRIC

PROBLEM
Inquiry Question: Is the eighth juror effective primarily because he is correct or
FORMULATION:
primarily because he is persuasive?
(Not Scored)

Learning Goals 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

RESEARCH:
Collects information I can
and data necessary investigate
I can classify Even with help,
to solve the outside sources I can identify With help, I can
textual I cannot identify
problem as for relevant textual identify textual
evidence as textual
formulated, drawing textual evidence as evidence as
support for evidence as
evidence from evidence to support for my support for my
claims and support for my
informational texts, support claims claim. claim.
counterclaims. claim.
conducting an counterclaims,
investigation, or and rebuttals.
generating data.

I can accurately
INTERPRETATION
analyze and I can accurately
: Even with help,
use relevant analyze and I can use With help, I can
Synthesizes I cannot use
and sufficient use relevant relevant direct use relevant
multiple sources of relevant direct
direct and and sufficient evidence to direct evidence
data to support a evidence to
inferential direct evidence answer my to answer my
claim, solve a answer my
evidence to to answer my question. question.
problem, or answer question.
answer my question.
a question.
question.

I can introduce
and establish
I can introduce
clear
and order ideas
COMMUNICATION relationships I can introduce Even with help,
and information With help, I can
: among ideas and groups I cannot
within and introduce and
Incorporates ideas and information ideas and introduce and
across groups ideas
and supporting within and information groups ideas
paragraphs and and information
evidence across through a basic and information
use transitions through a basic
purposefully using paragraphs and use of through a basic
in a way that use of
structures that use transitions paragraph use of
allows the paragraph
demonstrate the in a way that structure and paragraph
audience to structure.
line of reasoning. clarifies the transitions. structure.
follow the
reasoning and
argument.
logic of the
argument.

PRECISION: I can submit a I can submit a I can submit a With help, I can
Assures that the final product final product final product submit a final Even with help,
final product meets that meets or that meets all that attempts1 product that I cannot submit
all discipline- exceeds all ELA standards all ELA attempts ELA a final product.
specific standards ELA standards for language, standards for standards.

1
Academic vocabulary (inference, circumstantial evidence, fallacy, etc.) may be missing.
for language, for language, academic language and
terms, expressions, academic vocabulary, conventions.
rules, terminology, vocabulary, and
and conventions. and conventions.
conventions.

To request regrading of this assignment after the grade has been entered on JumpRope:
1) Meet with Mr. Farrell after school to discuss proposed changes and receive approval
2) Email dfarrell@originshighschool.org when your changes have been made