Which three jurors demonstrated good critical thinking skills?

Twelve Angry Men is, on its surface, a simple play about a murder case. As the reader gets further into the action of the play, we are able to see the good and bad characteristics of each juror, along with the ways in which they process the evidence which has been presented to them.
The eighth juror shows us the goodness and nobility that resides in some men. He shows that he has a logical way of looking at things. He shows his critical thinking skills early in the play, right after the first vote, when he says, "It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first." This simple line shows that he wants to really examine the case, using all of the evidence that has been presented to them. He is able to begin to sway the jurors with his critical thinking by showing them a knife which is identical to the murder weapon. The prosecution had assured the jurors that the murder weapon was "one of a kind." This is disproven by the fact that Juror 8 was able to buy an identical knife for two dollars just up the street from where the defendant lived. His critical thinking led him to look for a possibility of there being another knife out there that looked like the murder weapon. His mind holds onto the prosecution's declaration that the murder weapon was the only one of its kind in existence. He begins to question that assertion so much that he goes out to look for himself.
Juror number 1, who is also the foreman of the group, shows he has advanced critical thinking skills. He is able to control the group when they get angry with each other. At one point, he calls attention to their illogical, angry discourse when he asks, "Who's got something constructive to say?" This shows his critical thinking skills because it demonstrates that he knows how to analyze the situation and focus the jurors back to the task at hand without taking sides.
The eleventh juror shows his critical thinking skills through his analyzation, appreciation, and application of the tenets of democracy. He knows enough about how democracy is supposed to work to be able to begin to sway the jurors with his knowledge. One instance of this is when he pleads with the jurors to remain fair and impartial with his words: "We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing." The eleventh juror is the only foreign-born man in the group, and his critical thinking skills show that he has been influenced by both his own culture and his reverence for the democracy in which he now lives.
Reginald Rose was able to develop the character of each juror with a depth that would seem impossible given the fact that there are twelve jurors. He writes in such a way that the reader must read and interpret the backstory of each juror through their arguments for or against a guilty verdict. We are able to then interpret their words and analyze their ability to logically and critically reach a verdict.