Index Hasty Generalization: Drawing Conclusions Based on Insufficient Evidence The Conviction of Juror No. 3 neighborhood-based Juror #1's addiction. eleven other people, all with different opinions and perspectives. You are tasked with deciding the fate of a young man accused of murder. The evidence seems overwhelming and most of your fellow jurors are convinced of his guilt. However, as the deliberations unfold, you begin to question the validity of the arguments made. You begin to notice a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization creeping into discussions. In the movie “12 Angry Men,” hasty generalizations prevail, serving as a warning of the dangers of making broad assumptions based on limited evidence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Hasty Generalization: Drawing Conclusions Based on Insufficient Evidence Hasty generalization, also known as sweeping generalization, occurs when you draw a conclusion based on insufficient evidence or too small a sample size. In the context of “12 Angry Men,” it is evident in the way some jurors form their opinions about the defendant. They hastily generalize based on limited information, without considering alternative explanations or exploring the complexities of the case. The conviction of juror no. 3 based on the neighborhood One of the most striking examples of hasty generalization in the film is Juror #3's belief. 3 that the defendant is simply guilty because he grew up in such a neighborhood. He argues that people from these neighborhoods are prone to violence and criminal behavior, making it easy for him to assume the defendant's guilt. However, this perspective fails to recognize the diversity and individuality of people within a community. It overlooks the fact that not everyone who grows up in a disadvantaged neighborhood is destined to become a criminal. Juror No.'s hasty generalization. 3 is a great example of how preconceived notions and prejudices can cloud someone's judgment and lead to an unfair decision. The addiction of juror no. 7 by instinct Another example of hasty generalization can be seen in the reluctance of juror #1. deliberation. He ignores the importance of evidence and prefers to rely on his instincts. He hastily generalizes that his intuition is sufficient to determine the defendant's guilt, without considering the potential biases and subjectivity that might influence his judgment. This type of hasty generalization highlights the dangers of relying solely on personal feelings and emotions instead of critically examining the evidence. The power of challenging hasty generalizations The film also illustrates the power of challenging hasty generalizations and encouraging critical thinking. Juror no. 8, played by Henry Fonda, serves as a voice of reason and intellectual curiosity amidst the heated arguments. He questions the assumptions made by his fellow jurors, urging them to consider alternative explanations and examine the evidence more closely. The tenacity of juror no. 8 in seeking the truth demonstrates the importance of challenging hasty generalizations and promoting a more nuanced understanding of the case. A word of caution By examining the prevalence of hasty generalizations in “12 Angry Men,” we gain valuable insights into the dangers of making assumptions based on limited evidence or personal bias. The film reminds us that our judgments should be based on a thorough examination of the facts and a willingness to challenge our preconceptions..