Safer Saws — Splash305

1A: Manufacturers- The saw has a feature that allowes the blade to stop when the sensor attched to the blade picks up the detection of flesh. It stops fast enough to prevent any sort of injury.

1B: The saw has a feature that detects flesh and can prevent injury.

1C: Factual claim, it states the fact that the saw stops fast enough to prevent injury.

1D: This claim provides us with logic in wanting to change the ways of wood working to provide people with safer saws. It reassures us that with this technology people can avoid serious injury.

11A: Amputees- “My father put his hand through the table saw and it was terrible. It was an accident on an old saw that was caused by a lack of safety features (anti-kickback)”.

11B: If the saw had the safety feature attached then this person would still have their hand.

11C: Proposal claim, if he would have had the safety feature installed there would have been no injury.

11D: This claim provides us with logic, saying if we want to continue to have both hands it is worth spending the money for a safety feature.

2A: Customers- “I note the people opposed to sawstop don’t own one. I own 2. Jobsite and contractor. Used professionally, and I won’t let anyone on a jobsite use another saw.”

2B: People that don’t own sawstop say it isn’t worth it and saws can be safe if people pay attention but that is just because they don’t have one.

2C: Opinion claim, he thinks sawstop is the best and safest saw to have where as others find it unnessesary.

2D: This claim provides accuracey in the opinion being stated that safe saws may not be for everyone but when used they do what is told.

10A: Power Tool Product Reviewers- ” I care about the fact that there is a technology out there that can protect me and others who will not always be entirely 100% focused 100% of the time.”

10B: Not everyone is going to be fully focused all of the time, so we need the technology that is going to protect us when we are not.

10C: Evaluation claim, he is saying that the use of this technology will come in handy when peopl lose focus which is very common to do.

10D: This claim provides logic in letting us know that not everyone will be fully alert at all times of the day, and when they aren’t it is not to have advanced technology to bet there for our protection.

12A: Steve Gass Reviewers- “The more I see from Sawstop, and the more I hear about Gass, the more I hate them. The issues with Sawstop’s lack of quality control and their horrendous company in general is why I stay away from that brand at all costs.”

12B: His opinion of Steve Gass is the reason he dislikes the sawstop product and finds them to be a waste of time.

12C: Opinion claim, he lets his opinion of Steve Gass get in the way of seeing the reasoning behind this product and its safety.

12D: This claim provides persuasivness in trying to get people to think Steve Gass isn’t a good guy and therefore getting them to dislike his products.

This entry was posted in E06: Safer Saws, splash. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Safer Saws — Splash305

  1. davidbdale says:

    You’re doing fine work here, Splash, but let’s nuance your claim evaluations a little bit.

    —11A: Amputees- “My father put his hand through the table saw and it was terrible. It was an accident on an old saw that was caused by a lack of safety features (anti-kickback)”.
    —11B: If the saw had the safety feature attached then this person would still have their hand.
    —11C: Proposal claim, if he would have had the safety feature installed there would have been no injury.
    —11D: This claim provides us with logic, saying if we want to continue to have both hands it is worth spending the money for a safety feature.

    I like that you’ve identified a Proposal claim here. You correctly conclude that the speaker believes the saw manufacturer had an obligation to install safety features. So, does that make his claim an Ethical Proposal?

    There’s also a Causal Claim here, right? The accident WAS CAUSED BY a lack of safety features. That requires an Evaluation of the situation as well, and a conclusion by the speaker that an appropriate safety feature would have prevented the accident. Would greater care by the saw operator ALSO have prevented the accident? And, before anti-kickback features were invented, could anyone have claimed that their absence CAUSED the accident? Obviously there’s a difference between causing an outcome and failing to prevent one. Which one is the speaker claiming?

    By all means make revisions to this post if you wish, before it receives its grade. Let me know when you’ve made changes.

    Like

  2. chandlerbing27 says:

    The first claim is a casual claim. When a conductive element touches the saw blade, it causes the blade to stop almost immediately and retract into the body of the machine.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s