Safer Saws- belladonna98

1A. Manufacturers

When you’re cutting wood, if you accidentally run your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you just get a little nick instead of maybe taking some fingers off.

1B. Another saw could cut your fingers off, but this saw will stop before you have the chance to accidentally do so.

1C. This is a factual claim stating that running your hand into the blade causes it to stop.

1D. This claim is accurate and proved in the video it was taken from. Because it was a quote spoken to another person, let’s assume that the deadly “you” rule doesn’t apply as it does in writing; if it did, this claim would be a disaster. Because of the visual proof, it is logical and persuasive. However, on its own, the claim seems very casual and not very convincing at all; there is no concrete proof in the actual sentence.

2A. Customers

To hold Bosch liable for not making a bad business decision that would cost them lots of money seems a bit unreasonable if not ludicrous.

2B. It would be a bad decision for Bosch to install the SawStop in all of its products, so they should not be held accountable for not doing so.

2C. This is an opinion claim saying that holding Bosch accountable is borderline “ludicrous.”

2D. This claim is not stated very well. First off, to go from “a bit unreasonable” to “ludicrous” is a big jump when you’re trying to equate things of similar value. I get that he’s saying that holding them accountable is crazy, but they could have done it better. Also, “lots of money” is not nearly scholarly enough for the grown man who wrote this. How much money? He could have said thousands or millions of dollars, but he decided not to do that research and settle for “lots.” Even less scholarly is “bad business decision.” This man needs a thesaurus. Overall, it is accurate and logical, but not at all persuasive due to the sloppy rhetoric.

3A. Industry Spokespeople

SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.

3B. SawStop is available, but a customer must choose to buy it, as it is not yet required for it to install it on all saws.

3C. This is a factual opinion, stating that SawStop is available, but giving the opinion that a customer should choose to purchase it (and it should not be required on saws).

3D. This claim is a little passive aggressive, subtly asserting that if a customer wants safe stop, they should buy it and stop complaining. It is accurate, as we know that SawStop is not required, and we know it is available. It is reasonable to assume that customers should just buy the product. This claim is quite persuasive due to its complexity and abundance of reason.

4A. Consumer Safety Advocates

As I have stated many times before—and as is now reflected in the

agency’s new strategic plan—one of the CPSC’s primary goals is a commitment to

prevention.

4B. The CPSC has a strategic plan which includes the goal to prevent future table saw injuries.

4C. This is a factual proposal stating that the CPSC has a plan and suggesting its commitment to prevention.

4D. This claim has a tone of exasperation; the author is stating something that they have said a million times. They prove the truth of their statement by referring the reader to their plan, which they say proves their point. Whether or not that is true is for the reader to find out, but it seems so. It is logical that they would want to prevent injuries, they’re the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Overall I am persuaded; this claim seems to be true.

5A. Injured Plaintiffs

Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.

5B. The author is saying that Wec said that his injury was at the fault of Bosch.

5C. This is a proposal advocating for Wec.

5D. If this was a direct quote from Wec, it would be much more convincing. The author is paraphrasing his words, giving it the feeling that it is simple here say. The quotations around “traumatic injury” give away that the author doesn’t think the injury was traumatic, but rather it is Wec’s opinion (and also a direct quote) that it was traumatic. It is reasonable to think that his injury could have been prevented by Bosch, but it is not without disputability. Overall, the claim is not very persuasive because it is not directly quoted and it can easily be disputed.

5E. Wec could have been more responsible. It is not Bosch’s fault that he chose not to add the safety equipment that was available to him. Of course required SawStop would be beneficial, but it is not necessary. If he thought he was going to get injured, he should have bought and installed the product himself.

6A. Personal Injury Lawyers

Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.

6B. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.

6C. This is a factual evaluation, stating that SawStop has been available and evaluating how not all manufacturers have adopted it.

6D. This claim is okay overall, but it could be more specific. How many years has SawStop been around? Which manufacturers have adopted it? Which haven’t? For something factual it doesn’t actually give concrete facts, but what it does give is accurate. The lack of specificity makes it less persuasive than it could be, but it gets the point across.

7A. Government Officials

The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs.

7B. This is a proposal claim advocating for table saw safety.

7D. This is a very straightforward claim, but it doesn’t give specifics on how the benefits outweigh the costs. Obviously one can’t do that in one short sentence, so I can assume that the specifics come later in the writing. It is logical to assume what the claim states; safety is usually the best option. The word “clearly” gets rid of any doubts in the readers’ minds; this is the only way to go. It is persuasive in that way, giving the sense that the author’s way is the only way. It is convincing overall.

8A. News Reporters

But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.

8B. The technology works, but major tool companies have rejected it, although Gass offered them a license years ago.

8C. This is a factual evaluation, giving the facts about SawStop and the license, and evaluating how despite the offer and the product working well, no tool companies have installed the device.

8D. This claim gives the facts and reveals the craziness of the tool companies not adopting Gass’s technology. It gives the readers the sense that the tool companies should have adopted it, making it quite persuasive towards that point. It makes it seem like that was the best option; if the technology was there, and they had the license, why not? It uses this reasoning to get its point across. I applaud this claim for its clear statement of facts and concise statement of opinion.