Safer Saws- ballsohard83

1A. Manufacturers

When you’re cutting wood if you accidentally put your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you just get a little cut instead of taking some fingers completely 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 saying if your put  your hand into the blade it causes it to stop.

1D. This claim is accurate and proved in the video it was taken from.  Because of the visual proof, it is logical and persuasive. the claim seems very normal and it does not seem very convincing at all there is no proof in the sentence.

2A. Customer

the technology works works well but the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws and even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them it still doesn’t click .

2B. This claims states that tool companies did not put the Saw Stop technology in their saws even though it works.

2C. This claim is a factual claim.

2D. This claim shows that even though Gass invented this technology that could possibly reduce table saw injuries he hasn’t convinced major tool companies that they need his technology. There are three factual claims in this one sentence.

3A. Manufacturers

A PTI JV has developed a flesh sensing technology that reacts faster to  humans flesh near the blade and also has a lower replacement cost of firing, and decreases injury to a greater degree when compared to the Saw Stop technology.

3B. This sentence has three claims. These three claims challenge three aspects of Gass’s technology.

3C. This is a proposal claim.

3D. This claim tries to show that they have created a faster reacting, cheaper, and safer technology than Gass. With this claim Gass’s technology could help the manufacturers.

4A. Injured Plaintiffs

“I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.”

4B. This sentence claims that manufacturers should worry about the people who are injured by their table saws instead of worrying about the cost of the saws.

4C. This is a opinionated claim.

4D. This claim gives a  prospective from a person injured by a saw without Saw Stop, someone who want’s companies to introduce Saw Stop to their table saws so they can prevent more injuries. Companies are worrying more about money and less about safety.

 

 

5A. Personal Injury Lawyers

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

5B. Some manufacturers have just looked past this SawStop technology as if it has been around for some time but some have took advantage of this tool.

5C. This is a factual evaluation, stating that SawStop has been available and evaluating how not all manufacturers have adopted it.

5D. 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.

6A. Steve Gass himself

I’m gonna put this hot dog on top of the board here, as if it was my thumb misplaced in the path of the blade.

6B. Steve Gass presented a demonstration of him showing exactly how the technology  works.

6C. This is a proposal claim.

6D. Steve Gass spoke about his demonstration. He explained how his technology worked. In a later demonstration he took it a notch further and used his actual finger to show his confidence in his technology.

7A. Government Officials

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

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

7D. This is a very straightforward claim, but it doesn’t give specifics on how the benefits outweigh the costs. One can’t do that in one short sentence, so I can assume that the proof will appear later. It is logical to assume what the claim states; safety is usually the best option. The word “clearly” eliminates 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 very straightforward and convincing overall.

8A. Amputees

“I lost a finger and half the use of my hand in a table saw accident the cost of a cartridge a new blade is well worth having that safety.”

8B. This claim states that the cost of losing a finger is much greater than the cost of replacing broken pieces on a table saw.

8C. This is a factual claim.

8D. The cost of replacing a broken blade and cartridge is around $160, which is a big difference form the hundred thousands of dollars spent on medical bills after a table saw accident. It would be stupid for someone who would choose thousands of dollars when they only have to spend a couple hundred.