Sorry it took me so long, I lose track D: D: D:Nope. Start with a contextualising sentence; literally something that refers to the context of the play. "Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s" or "In the height of the McCarthyist paranoia, propaganda and deceit were rife. In Twelve Angry Men (introducing very quickly because I'm lazy), playwright Reginald Rose focuses on such concepts as governmental control of the justice system" etc - you ge tthe idea. Not so sure on that last governmental point, I was just spinning bullshit for the exampleReginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, depicts the somewhat poor, yet ultimately successful collaboration of twelve jurors, locked up in a stuffy room, deciding on the verdict of a young male from the slums.
Read this sentence out loud. These jurors are the microcosm of social America
social America? odd phrase. I think the sentence would read better as "The jury room is [utilised as?] a microcosmic representation of 1950s American society," in the 1950's, as there are no females or dark-skinned citizens present
You don't know there are no dark skinned people present. Never says that in the play. No women present could be significant though. . The preoccupations of characters such as their prejudice shown by jurors 3 and 10
Grammar jut punched in the face, watch out! "their prejudice" "by jurors" ==> Also strange sentence starter. I'll use your words and flip them "The prejudicial preoccupations of characters three and ten, coupled with the seventh juror's excessive self-interest, hinder the final verdict of the case., coupled with the excessive self-interest, held by juror 7, hinder the final decision made by the jurors. However, because of the open-mindedness and constructive attitude of several jurors, which counter-acts the hindrance in reaching the final verdict and ensures that the jury ultimately reaches a fair decision
This last line seems like you'll stray from the prompt. This questions asks "why", not "what". Yes, the jury does reach a 'fair' decision (i would avoid this word, subjectivity plus!) however, what about this makes the case difficult? You speak of social microcosms however this is a throwaway line in your introdcution. You could turn this into some nice introductory material, however. What about society in 1950s/ You could put some of this stuff into your essay. You could talk about stereotypical views of masculinity and then discuss this in conjunction with Juror 3 and his views on his son and "turning him into a man" or whatever bullshit he spouts. Yknow? FUCK I LOVE TWELVE ANGRY MEN OMGOAIHWLKJEHFLKJEQWH .
The personal prejudices of juror three, and juror ten’s bigoted views of ‘slum people’, are major factors that contribute to the difficulty that the jury experiences, in reaching the final verdict.
Yep you overuse commas. This is going to run throughout the essay. ", in reaching the final verdict", that comma is entirely irrelevant. Read it out loud. This is how it is written "The persona; prejudices of juror three *tiny pause for intonation* and juror ten's bigoted views of 'slum people' *tiny pause that ends the intonation* are major factors that contribute to the difficult that the jury experiences *pause for intonation* in reaching the final verdict"... Does it not read better as "...the jury experiences in reaching the final verdict"? Juror three is the last man to attain ‘reasonable doubt’ and deem the convicted boy,
comma yucky yucky not guilty. This is caused by his personal involvement in the case, as he views the boy on trial, as someone similar to his own son, who he has an edgy relationship with, and therefore sees the conviction of the boy as a way to get even with his son
alright this is the last time I'll point out the commas but you should 100% read this whole speech aloud PAYING ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN PUNCTUATION if you're serious about improving. This whole thing also needs a lot of evidence to back it up. "When he was 16 we had a battle", "I know him!"Along with the writing so far these ideas could also do with expansion but that comes with time/thinking lots about it 
, by claiming to be the suspect’s ‘executioner.’ Moreover, juror ten’s racial attitude towards the slum people causes him to come to the conclusion that the charged boy must surely be guilty of murdering his father. This juror is seen getting in a heated discussion and deeming slum people to be ‘dangerous’ and ‘wild.’ But his racial views are met with anger, he is subsequently told to ‘sit down and [not] open [his] mouth again.’
Telling me his views are met with anger retells the story. You don't analyse here. The previous few lines are retelling. These preoccupations brought in by juror 3 and 10, and their stubbornness in not listening to the thoughtful views presented by other jurors, delays the jury’s final decision.
Good.Gotta work on your expression and flow - you'll see rapid improvements with the correct use of commas. Try and read as much as you can handle (within reason), a few newspaper artciles per day, a chapter of a book every night before bed etc.
Gotta elaborate your ideas
Gotta make sure you're analysing Furthermore,
Don't start your paragraphs with furthermore. the disproportionate level of self-interest and lack of responsibility, shown by juror seven, hinders himself and the jury, in attaining ‘reasonable doubt’, and hence a final decision. The seventh juror just wants the case to end as quickly as possible as he is supposed to attend a baseball match later on, therefore he changes his verdict to ‘not guilty’ just for the sake of leaving early, when asked the reason that made him change his mind, he tentatively answers with- ‘I don't uh... think he's guilty!’, showing that he simply agrees with the majority in order to end the case.
Shallow analysis. he genuinely believes he isn't guilty from my memory, he just didn't want to say it because he is weak. Juror 11 comments on this a few lines down. Juror seven is the only juror that is reluctant to involve himself in the discussion of the case due to being overly self-involved, he even criticizes another juror’s willingness to listen to everyone’s opinions. Juror seven’s close-mindedness, caused by his excessive self-interest, makes it difficult for the jury to unanimously attain ‘reasonable doubt.’
It's like you're so close but so far at the same time. Would a sample essay help you? You're like juuuuuust fringgggging on the analysis we want but not there yet.-Dem commas, sonAlthough, reaching the final decision, indeed proves to be an arduous task for the jury, the open-mindedness and constructive attitude of several jurors enables the jury to stay on track at times, ultimately reaching a fair decision, albeit a difficult one. Initially, it is juror eight who solely prevents the jury on delivering a hasty verdict, by reminding them of their roles and of what is at stake. Eventually, by giving juror eight a chance to present his reason for why the kid is not guilty, many others follow suit by changing their stance on the case, because of their willingness to give the kid a fair trial. Also, juror eleven’s advocacy for democracy helps the jury stay focused on achieving a fair decision. Having experienced what it is like to live without democracy, juror eleven makes sure he makes a fair decision on his behalf, by closely inspecting the discussion throughout the play, he delivers his reason for changing his decision to ‘not guilty’, and criticises juror seven’s random change of mind without any reason. Additionally, juror four’s determination to deliver a fair verdict, helps the jury focus on the task at hand, this is exemplified when juror four resoundingly tells juror ten to ‘shut [his] mouth’, when he presents his prejudice views towards the ‘kid on trial’ and ‘his type’.
Noooooooooooooooooo. This doesn't relate to hte prompt, really. It doesn't discuss why it is difficult to reach the verdict. I see what you're trying to do with the sort of "however" paragraph, as werdna calls it, however you've essentially just backtracked on your contention. Keep the concept of the third paragraph as a sort of 'differentiation' paragraph, but in my opinion, make it one that is more creative/perceptive/out-there thinking, rather than one that disagrees with the contention. Some other high scoring students might disagree with me on that one but that's just how I do it. You arguing through analysing and you can't win if you don't back yourself the whole way. /b]
Throughout the play, the prejudice towards the young boy being tried, the preoccupations of characters towards the slum people, and the lack of interest in reaching a fair decision, shown by characters such as juror three, seven and tenthis is inconsistent, you used numerals above, IIRC - stick to one or the other., all make it a difficult task for the jury in twelve angry men capital letters, please! It's a title. And underline it as well. , to reach a fair verdict through attaining ‘reasonable doubt’. But it is through the open-mindedness of characters, led by the architect protagonist, that a fair verdict is delivered, once again showing the effectiveness of a jury system.
Yeah we have to work on that flow. Right now you're like, Eminem's friend that shoots himself in the dick in the middle of 8-Mile in terms of flow - a little disjointed etc. You want to be Eminem at the end of 8 Mile when he's all like muthafuckin' "ERRYBODY IN THE 313, PUT YO MUTHAFUCKING HANDS UP AND FOLLOW ME" - yknow? - I reckon fix your commas/punctuation and also some grammar(sentence structure) - read as much as you can, even if that sounds terrible to you. Read a science magazine or some shit.
Also gotta work on the expansion of ideas. Right now you're Eminem as he scribbles on a napkin and it's like "omg bro got the sickest rhyme" but then he crosses it out even though he almost got there. You gotta be the Eminem that's like "omg I had the sickest idea for my final battle; I'm going to tell them all about how terrible my life is and make the other guy choke"
Also need to work on the addition of metalanguage however I think this will come naturally as your flow, vocabulary, and more importantly, your ideas improve. Metalanguage just lends itself to good ideas imo.
Good luck man, sorry it took so long!!!!
(hope you watched 8 Mile)
Home
Help
Search
Login
