This exam is open notes and book, please no use of cell phones, other internet sources, headphones, etc. Exam will result in a 0 if caught. For questions 1-5, please complete each question.
1. Write a loop to print all multiples of three from 0 to 100.
2. What causes an infinite loop? How do we break it?
3. Find 3 mistakes in the code and correct them: (code provided)
4. True or False. A switch statement can allow a range of values for a variable on a single case statement. 5. What is the output of the following code? (code provided)
6. Write a program to compute the impedance, Z, and inductance, L, of an electrical coil given voltage, V, current, I, resistance, R, and frequency, F, for six different circuits. Have the user input V, I, R, and F each time. Use given formulas for calculations. Each iteration should print out the voltage, current, reactance, and impedance using provided input values.
7. Write a program to compute the periods of a simple pendulum for arm lengths starting at 12 inches and reaching a period less than or equal to 3.45 seconds. Increment length by 1 foot each iteration, from 1 foot upward, and print length and period until the period is ≤ 3.45.
8. Conduct an in-depth analysis of the film
12 Angry Men
using three theories studied in class. The analysis should include:
Descriptions of each of the three theories, including their perspectives, with citations.
Application of each theory to two specific scenes or interactions in the film, with careful analysis and questions for further inquiry.
Discussion of the usefulness and limitations of each theory, and how they provide different insights into the conflict.
If opting for the case analysis alternative, analyze a real conflict situation, including a description of the case, a personal reflection on your relation to the conflict, and maintain self-awareness. Follow the same structural requirements.
Paper For Above instruction
The film
12 Angry Men
presents a compelling exploration of juror dynamics, conflict, and decision-making. Conducting an analytical review through the lens of three distinct social conflict theories provides a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms influencing the characters' behaviors and interactions. This essay employs the Social Conflict Theory, Symbolic Interactionism, and Rational Choice Theory to analyze key scenes, elucidating how each perspective reveals different facets of the conflict and the process of group deliberation.
Section 1: Theoretical Frameworks
First, the Social Conflict Theory, rooted in the work of Karl Marx, views social interactions as struggles for power and resources among groups with differing interests and class structures. It emphasizes how societal inequalities influence individual behaviors and institutional processes (Marx, 1867). In
12 Angry Men
, this theory helps analyze how class biases, socioeconomic backgrounds, and ethical power dynamics impact jurors’ perceptions and judgments, revealing underlying class tensions that influence their positions.
Second, Symbolic Interactionism, derived from George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, focuses on micro-level interactions, emphasizing the importance of symbols, meanings, and interpretations in shaping social reality (Blumer, 1969). Through this lens, the film's scenes demonstrate how jurors’ perceptions are molded through communication, body language, and the attribution of meaning to others’ statements, which in turn influence their stances.
Third, Rational Choice Theory posits that individuals make decisions based on rational calculations aimed at maximizing personal benefits (Becker, 1968). Applied to the jurors, this perspective interprets their voting patterns and conflict resolutions as strategic decisions influenced by personal interests, biases, and the desire to minimize cognitive effort or conform to peer pressure.
Section 2: Scene Analysis
Scene 1: The Initial Vote
The first scene involves the initial vote where almost all jurors vote "guilty," except Juror 8 who votes "not guilty." Using Social Conflict Theory, this scene illustrates underlying class and societal biases—Juror 8 challenges the dominant group's assumptions, against a backdrop of class-based prejudices.
From a Symbolic Interactionist perspective, Juror 8’s calm demeanor and deliberate questioning serve as symbols of rationality and moral integrity, challenging the others’ interpretations of the evidence. The body language and tone are significant, influencing how others interpret and respond to his challenge.
Applying Rational Choice Theory, jurors weigh personal interests—Juror 8’s independent stance risks social alienation but may also yield personal moral satisfaction. Other jurors’ conformity reflects strategic decision-making—either to maintain group harmony or to avoid conflict, revealing how individual choices are influenced by social and psychological costs.
Scene 2: The Knife Test
This scene features Juror 9’s revelation about the old man's hearing problem, which casts doubt on the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. Social Conflict Theory highlights how intergenerational and social class differences influence perceptions of credibility and truth.
Symbolic Interactionism underscores the significance of communication cues, such as Juror 9’s tone and gestures, which establish a new interpretive frame among the jurors, shifting opinions and highlighting how meanings are negotiated during interactions.
From a Rational Choice standpoint, jurors reevaluate their decisions based on the new evidence—some perceiving the additional doubts as sufficient to change their votes, driven by the strategic desire for an 'appropriate' outcome rather than emotional or moral grounds.
Section 3: Evaluation of Theories
The Social Conflict Theory offers valuable insights into the systemic influences—such as societal biases and class distinctions—that shape individual attitudes and group polarization. Its limitation lies in potentially underestimating the micro-level processes and individual agency, as it tends to focus exclusively on structural inequalities.
Symbolic Interactionism effectively explains how communication and symbolism influence perceptions
and decision-making at the micro-level. However, it may overlook broader social and economic forces, making it less comprehensive for understanding the larger systemic issues intertwined with personal interactions.
Rational Choice Theory provides a pragmatic view of decision-making, highlighting strategic behavior and individual interests. Its weakness is the tendency to oversimplify complex social behaviors into rational calculations, neglecting emotional, moral, or irrational influences that also govern human actions.
Conclusion
Each theory reveals different layers of the conflict in 12 Angry
Men
The Social Conflict Theory illuminates systemic inequalities and power struggles; Symbolic Interactionism uncovers how micro-level communication processes shape perceptions; and Rational Choice offers insight into strategic decision-making. Together, these perspectives deepen our understanding of the multifaceted nature of group conflict and deliberation, demonstrating that integrating multiple theories can provide a richer, more nuanced analysis than any single approach.
References
Becker, G. S. (1968).
Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach
. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press. Marx, K. (1867).
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy
. Penguin Classics.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.
Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012).
The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling
. University of California Press.
Seller, J. M. (2019). Dynamics of group decision-making: a Social Conflict perspective.
Journal of Conflict Resolution , 63(4), 813-840.
Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narrative Paradigm: The Power of Stories and the Stories We Live By. Christian Gaarde.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times.
Larson, G. E. (2015). Micro-interactions and social influence in jury deliberation.
Qualitative Sociology
, 38(3), 287–308.
Page, S. E. (2008).
Shared Intentionality and Collective Decision-Making
. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1509), 1983-1992.
