Safer Saws–todayistheday

Grab bag of Claims

4A) Consumer product safety Commission

4B) “Each year, more than 67,000 workers and do-it-yourselfers are injured by table saws, according to the consumer product safety commission, resulting in more than 33,000 emergency room visits and 4,000 amputations.”

4C) Factual claim because it offers statistics on how many individuals are injured by table saws .

4D) The accuracy seems intact because they take exact injury statistics. The quality is good because it is coming from a safety commission, which gives the facts an enhanced trust.  It’s hard to dispute the reasonableness of facts because only the truth is offered; although it could be twisted.  Logic is emplace when relaying facts. This claim does its job at being persuasive.  It makes the viewer consider the number of injuries and realize the number of those hurt is alarming.

4E) I agree with this claim because I don’t have any evidence to dispute it.  I have no reason not to trust the facts that they provide in their claim.

Table Saw Injury Lawyer

6A) The Schmidt Firm, personal injury lawyers.

6B) Manufactures should face lawsuits because thousands of people are injured because they refuse to install Sawsafe technology.

6C) Opinion claim, because they state manufactures are at fault for injuries.

6D) Since it is an opinion claim it is hard to look at for accuracy since it is more fueled on feeling.  The quality of this opinion is shady because it is coming from lawyers who will make money if injured persons believe manufactures are at fault. The persuasiveness is moderate, it does hook you in but it doesn’t exactly justify.  But original claims don’t have to explain or justify just yet.

6E) I agree with the claim although it is opinion. I don’t trust it as much because it is made by lawyers trying to convince people to sue, so in turn they can make money as well.

Power Tool Industry

8A) as a news reporting site

8B) “The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could, by now, have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.”

8C) categorical claim, this places SawStop as good for helping people but bad at helping business.  It categorizes Sawstop for two different reasons.

8D) The accuracy is based on which you analyze SawStop.  Sawstop is good for helping people but it doesn’t get the chance to do so.  Quality is based on the reaction of the viewer.  This claim makes us take a step back and realize how twisted it is; SawStop could help thousands, but it’s kicked to the curb because it won’t make the industry thousands.  The provoking  of this thought makes this claim a persuasive one, because it makes us consider which category SawStop should belong in.

8E) I agree with this claim. As awful as it might be to consider the money in SawStop, industries will lose money.  But we also categorize SawStop as good because of all the people it could help.

Power Tool Industry

11A) Tom Corbett, a four finger amputee.

11B) “He still struggles to remember all of the horrible details, but he’s haunted by the fact that four of his fingers were severed.  “I just know within a second my fingers were on the ground,” he said.”

11C) I’m not sure what claim this would be but I’m thinking evaluation.  I think this is an evaluation claim because it evaluates and describes the situation that resulted in him being an amputee. He evaluates the shock and horror of suddenly becoming an amputee.

11D) The only accuracy that we can rely on is to trust Mr.Corbett is telling the truth. We hope the author made sure he really was an amputee resulting in a table saw accident.  The logic behind this claim is to give insight into the pain that not preventing table saw accidents causes.  This in turn gives the claim good persuasive qualities.  It relies on the emotion behind an amputee’s account and what kind of emotions that would stir inside the reader.

11E) I agree with this claim, although there is no easy way to prove Mr. Corbett is a real table saw amputee. The claim does its job to persuade us that table saw accidents can devastate lives.

Defending Table Saw safety

3A) Table Saw Companies

3B) “They’ve argued that injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents—including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—is exaggerated. ”

3C) This is an opinion claim.  Table saw companies are arguing the legitimacy of facts due to the money making factor in them.

3D) The accuracy is not present, we don’t know why they would believe this.  The injury numbers and the money lose resulting from them, was totaled.  But the power tool industry companies doubt the truth behind these numbers.  The logic can somewhat be detected, it would make sense from the industries to try and smear the facts presented to make themselves look better. The persuasiveness is also represented, the goal of any claim is to make you question.  With this claim you consider what the industries are stating.

3E) I personally think the industries are just trying to save their own behinds.  They are making claims without any thought or reasonableness behind them.  Regardless, it does make you weigh both sides.











Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: