6A. An unnamed writer for the Schmidt Law Firm wrote, “Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year. Fingers, hands, and arms are the most common parts of the body that are amputated. Only 20% of the injuries occur in people who are on the job, where injuries are usually covered by workplace accident insurance.”
First: It lists the amount of injuries and some statistics about those injuries in an effort to push for more SawStop usage.
Second: The overall claim contains a claim that only a fraction of those injuries cause amputations
Third: It claims that the expected places of injury are the most common places of amputation.
Fourth: It claims that only a fifth of the people injured are on the job, somewhat discrediting the effectiveness of making SawStop mandatory for workplace usage.
6c. The first claim is a causal claim with X being table saws without SawStop and Y being 40,000 injuries per year.
The second claim is a factual claim about how many many injuries actually result in amputation. The wording is very plain and simple, without either side of the situation appearing to be supported.
The third claim is another factual claim. This is more of just restating what people already expect. The body parts nearest the saw are the ones most commonly amputated, as expected.
The fourth claim is yet another factual claim, this time serving to point out that only a fraction of the people injured by table saws are people on the job.
6d. The first claim is completely reasonable and honestly makes complete sense.
The second claim is as well reasonable and makes sense.
The third claim is kind of redundant. Maybe I’m just being too critical, but it seems pointless to mention that the parts of the body that interact with the table saw are the parts of the body that most often get amputated.
The fourth claim is astonishing and serves as a strong persuasive piece of their argument. The fact that only a fraction of the people injured are people at work should make companies want to implement SawStop more. People on the job are covered by insurance, while the common user is more likely to sue for lack of insurance coverage.