http://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/
11A. “Each year, more than 67,000 U.S. workers and do-it-yourselfers suffer blade contact injuries, according to government estimates, including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.”-Myron Levin
11B. The claim is saying that 67,000 people are injured a year, 4,000 where amputees.
11C. The claim is factual and is based on statistics taken.
11D. The claim is backed up by the group fairwarning, a organization that investigates for public health and safety.
11E. I agree with the claim provided because it is factual based and is coming from a good source. the statistic used are backed up within the post itself.
http://toolguyd.com/sawstop-bosch-reaxx-table-saw-lawsuit/
9A. “They contend that Bosch, and their new ReaXX table saw, which also features flesh-detection and blade brake technology, is infringing on SawStop’s patented inventions.”- Mr. Gass.
9B. The claim states that the creator of the technology is suing a rival company for infringing on the patented design.
9C. The claim is factual because it is Gass who is suing the company because of the patented design.
9D. The claim is backed up because Gass is a lawyer and that it is his company who is involved with a lawsuit with Bosch.
9E. I agree with this claim because if I were Gass, I would sue the other company. This claim is backed by the creator of the product.
Click to access tenenbaum10052011.pdf
7A. “I was moved by what I heard from the victims of these injuries, whose lives were changed forever, due to one split-second miscalculation while using a table saw.”
7B. The claim states that the lives of the injured were changed forever because of a miscalculation.
7C. The claim is opinionated because it talks about how it was a miscalculation and not human error.
7D. The claim is opinionated as said, it is only backed by the logic behind one being injured and that they can not do everyday tasks that were effected by the injury.
7E. I agree with this claim because being hurt can effect a lot of things.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137258370/if-table-saws-can-be-safer-why-arent-they
1A. “They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.
1B. The claim states that the industries refused the safety product because safety does not sell.
1C. The claim is an opinion because no facts or evidence is used to back up this argument.
1D. The claim is backed by the rival industries opinions on how product that are cheaper sell more rather than a product that can save people from horrible injuries.
1E. I disagree with this claim because of how it is not backed up by facts. In my opinion I would buy a product that is safer to use than just the standard one. This is because I would not want to risk any horrible injury that would put difficulties into my life.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/table-saw-sawstop-safety-finger-cut/
3A. “A man took an Oscar Meyer wiener and pushed it into the blade of a table saw spinning 4,000 times per minute. As the hot dog touched the whirring saw, the blade came to a dead stop in about three one-thousandths of a second, leaving the dog with only a minor nick. ”
3B. The claim is that the safe saw is a better alternative to the standard saw. It is demonstrated and proven effective.
3C. The claim is factual based on the fact that the experiment was carried out and documented.
3D. The claim goes along with the known proposal that the safe saw works and is highly effective on its design to protect the user.
3E. I agree with the claim because it is a controlled experiment that was documented to prove the effectiveness of the product.
Rowan Counterintuitive 