Manufacturers
1A. “The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when it is touched by human flesh.”
1B. Theres a flesh detection technology that detects if human flesh is near the blade which then stops instantly.
1C. This is a factual claim because it is a personal testimony by the manufactures.
1D. There is no real evidence determining that this technology actually stops instantly, or reviews from real people who own this tool and have actually tried it.
Customers
2A. “Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.”
2B. This claim states that after a discussion with their competitors they still continued to sell their dangerous tools.
2C. This statement is a factual claim because of the verified information Bosch tools told.
2D. The claim persuades me to think that Bosch could’ve had a safer tool for their consumers but they decided not to and continued to sell dangerous saws hoping that their consumers wouldn’t notice. I don’t understand why only table saws are dangerous and not the rest of the tools.
Injured Plaintiffs
5A. “The bringer of the suit is essentially claiming that 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 claims states that Bosch could have prevented these lawsuits if and only if they did not reject against safety technology.
5C. This statement is very opinionated because the bringer is biased about the Bosch’s decision of not securing the safety of their consumers.
5D. The claim is very biased from a user’s perspective of a bad experience the user had. The claims state that Bosch could of prevented these incidents but theres not enough statistic evidence showing the percentage of people injured.
Steve Gass Himself
9A. “petition from Gass, engineers at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a “rulemaking process” that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws.”
9B. This claim explains how Gass himself recommended that the government make rules towards table saws and make sure that they provide more safety.
9C. This claim is more so a proposal because Gass suggested ideas to the government without the government asking for them.
9D. Theres not evidence of the petition succeeding or if the government ever agreed to it. Gass thinks he knows best but does he? This claim can be arguable.
Power tool product reviewers
10A. “Existing Underwriters Laboratories document ANSI/UL 987 includes provisions for maintaining safe distance from saw blades and instructions for proper use.”
10B. This claim clarifies that under this document “ANSI/UL 987” there are safety regulations to be followed.
10C. This statement is a proposal claim because it suggests the consumers to think twice before standing to close to the blades.
10D. The claim is reasonable and gives a precaution that users should consider. However it contradicts the product tools purpose of it being safe and a document should not be stating the danger there is.
Rowan Counterintuitive 
Thank you for your work on this assignment, Intern. We should have a brief conversation in class about the appropriate refutations for claims of fact. They cannot be effectively refuted by the argument that “no evidence was provided to support the claim.” We’ll spend more time on this aspect of argument in the lead-up to your Rebuttal Essays but for now let it be said that the refutation for lack of evidence is a little bit of evidence to the contrary. I don’t expect you to provide your own evidence here in a homework exercise, but if you needed to refute an unsubstantiated claim in your research project, any small amount of evidence to support your own position, like a pair of deuces against five unmatched cards, would take the hand.
LikeLike