Safer Saws- LBirch

4A. Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day!  I’ve wanted to push the CPSC for a mandatory standard ever since hearing a story on NPR in May of 2006. The inventors of a saw that senses an electrical current in a finger, as opposed to a piece of wood, and stops before serious harm is done, named their company SawStop.

4B.

First: 10 people a day are losing their fingers due to saw innocents and this seems like a shocking statistic.

Second: This customer has been wanting to make a push for a safer, better saw with more precautions that gives users less risk of amputation of a finger. The author of this article has been wanting to do this for around five years.

Third: Inventors of this saw have made and designed something very different that no one else has made.

Fourth: This saw prevents severe injury, and with this new design, stops the saw completely.

4C. 

• The first claim is a factual claim, stating that ten people are amputated every day due to a saw accident. This data comes from CPSC’s, Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is a reliable source for product information.
• The second claim is causal claim and the author states that because of these accidents, he has been wanting a new standard of equipment. He has been wanting to do this since May of 2006, but we do not know if he has tried anything to make this equipment standard possible because he has only wanted to do this.
• The third claim of new inventors finally making a product that can prevent amputations is causal. It claims that because of the need of a safer saw, the StopSaw was made with new technology that has never been used before.
• The fourth claim is a claim of value. That if we have this new, safer product, serious harm will decrease. If the blade slightly comes in contact with you, an electrical current will stop the blade.

4D. 

• The first claim can be flawed because of how this research was collected. We do not know how the CPSC collected their data even if they are a reliable commission and group.
• The second claim, that the author has been wanting a new standard, is most likely accurate because of how alarming this stat seems.
• The third claim, that new technology that senses electrical current is being made seems correct and reliable too. But with the limited information, we cannot decide how much this will prevent injuries.
• The fourth claim the author makes seems to be his opinion. He states that the blade will stop before any serious injury is done is not backed up by sources or experiences.