Safer Saws – anonymous

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. An ordinary saw would cause severe injury if your hand touched the blade, but this saw is different. It can save your fingers.

1C. This statement is factual, the blade will stop when touched by your finger.

1D. The statement by itself has no factual evidence and is casual at best. The only reason I know the sentence is factual is from the video that is part of the article.

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. Pinning the blame on Bosch for not incorporating this new technology is not fair considering it would be detrimental to their business.

2C. This a statement of opinion concluding holding Bosch liable is “unreasonable.”

2D. While poorly worded and not quite a rhetoric this is an opinion. The only problem I have with this statement is the jump from “a bit unreasonable” to “ludicrous”. The point he is trying to make becomes convoluted and a lot less stable when he tries to equate unreasonable to ludicrous.

3A. Industry Spokespeople

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

3B. SawStop can be purchased by any customer who wants it.

3C. This is a factual opinion, stating that anyone who feels the need to purchase this additional safety measure.

3D. This sentence is very subtly hinting at the fact that if the consumer wants to get the additional safety of SawStop it is “available” for purchase.

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 well versed clinical response to the safety advocates core values and goals.

4D. They claim they have gone over this many times and it should be common knowledge. Although they go on to say the agency is incorporating a “new strategic plan”. Is this new plan different than the original? At the end they do instill their primary goal is still the same, “commitment to prevention.”

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. This is a really opinionated statement, quoting “Wec”, saying his injury could of been prevented if only Bosch had not denied the new technology.

5C. This is a opinionated view from a victim that is obviously very biased. It sets out to demonize the big corporation that is “Bosch”.

5D. This claim is paraphrased and can be easily disputed. It gives off a personal and clearly biased vibe, and to me seems almost phony. There is no evidence and no face to put on the injury so for all intensive purposes its a fairy-tale.

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 clear cut statement verbalizing how long SawStop has been around and letting the reader know not everyone has adopted it.

6D. Not the most persuasive statement ever made but what it lacks in details it makes up for in simplicity. Sometimes a clear cut statement can be more influential than a million different metaphors and statistics.

7A. Government Officials

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

7B. There are many benefits of improving the table saw, cost should not be an issue.

7C. This is a opinionated claim. It insinuates that incorporating this new technology is a situation of morality. We shouldn’t negotiate price when it can save someone from traumatic injury.

7D. Again, not very well defined in the wording and reasoning. What are the benefits? What are the costs?

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. This technology is proven to work yet major tool companies refuse to use it, even after Gass offered them the license.

8C. This is another opinionated claim backed by some fact. The blame is directed toward these tool companies suggesting they are neglectful for not accepting the license.

8D. This statement is persuasive enough but gives no statistics to help convince the reader the companies are indeed neglectful. “Failed” is a strong word and was used pretty tactfully in this claim.