Rowan Counterintuitive

8b. This quote claims:

• This technology works.
• The technology works well.
• Major tool companies have failed to use this technology on any of their other table saws.

8c. The first two claims state factual evidence that the product works and that is works well.  The third claim is that the company has “failed to use the technology on other table saws” but the problem with this statement is that this news reporter is assuming this. how does he know that they haven’t been in the process of installing this new technology on their other table saws.

8d. The first and second claims are sustainable because they are simple facts.  The third claim is unstainable

 

1. Creator

Steve Gass invented a woodworking device that stops the teeth of a saw within 4/1000’s of a second. Steve now is a manufacturer of the product and has never had a customer who has suffered amputation or serious injury from his saws.

2. Manufacturers

Most manufacturers believe that a large part of their demographic does not want the SawStop because it adds cost for something that they don’t need because they take proper safety precautions beforehand. Black&Decker holds firmly stating, “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” since the SawStop is available online, they believe if you want that product then you should buy it directly from them.

3. Customers

The customer’s claim on the subject depends on who you ask. They will either be delighted to have it, or angry. Many customers do not like the SawStop because of the added cost, false positives (which increase cost and extend time of project), braking event poses a hazard, and they also believe that if you want this technology then you should buy it directly from the creator.

4. Industry Spokespeople

Industries such as the Power Tool Industry (PTI) argue that making all saws compatible with SawStop would be too expensive. Although it would prevent over 40,000 injuries and it’s cost, the manufacturers are not the one’s paying for it. The PTI holds that if you use the proper safety equipment and follow the proper safety procedures, that you do not need a SawStop.

5. Consumer Safety Advocates

Consumer safety advocates such as Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum seek to find solutions to reduce to amount of table saw accidents every year. They look at the 67,300 medically treated table saw accidents in 2007-2008 which resulted in $2.36 billion dollars in medical bills which have changed the lives of many families. Tenenbaum stands strong in his argument that preventable injuries are unacceptable and claims that the manufacturers are responsible.

6. Injured Plaintiffs

One injured plaintiff argued that Bosch “colluded with competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to stop “flesh detection and braking” technology from being a requirement. He also argued that this technology has been out since his traumatic injury, and if Bosch utilized that technology then he would not have been injured. Another plaintiff extended the same argument and won 1.5 million dollars.

7. Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal injury lawyers have held companies reliable for personal injuries stating that they are liable for the reason that had the safety mechanism been utilized, their injuries would have been miniscule. Rewards have been given for medical expenses, pain and suffering.

8. Government Officials

Government officials look at the statistical side of the situation and not much else. They hold that table saws cause thousands of serious injuries every year, which costs billions of dollars to the consumer. They state that table saw safety standards have been ineffective in preventing harm. The officials maintain that there is technology that exists that can protect the consumer, therefore it should be forcefully implemented

9. News Reporters 

Mother Jones made us aware that SawStop has had two reports of amputations. They also attacked the manufacturers on their arguments to not implement the SawStop technology. Mother Jones assumes that manufacturers are not utilizing the technology because they are scared of a wave of liability lawsuits. Although this very well may be true, the manufacturer’s arguments of higher prices and conductivity problems that are pointed out here are very sound. Mother Jones also talks with table saw victims for a dose of pathos to the reader.

1a. Within the article, “Saws cut off 4,000 fingers a year. This Gadget could fix that,” the Robert Bosch Tool Corporation stated, “Safety has historically been one of the Bosch principals… and is reflected in our slogan ‘Invented for life.’

1b. This quote is stating that safety is crucial to The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and that safety is so significant that the business references it in their slogan.

1c. This is a proposal claim because they are introducing the idea that safety is one of their principals. By doing so they are trying to convince anyone who thinks otherwise that they support safety with that claim. They introduce their slogan at the end of the quote to support their claim even further.

1d. This claim is trying to persuade everyone to see the positive side of Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. However, if Robert Bosch Tool Corporation considers safety one of their priorities. Instead of continuing to release saws that have been proven to cause various injuries, they showed seek safer methods to lower the number of injuries.

2a. “That the price of their table saws with the safety devices would ‘increase dramatically,’ eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.”

2b. This quote is making the assumption that if the SawStop table saws were to be put on the market, it would give the SawStop in unfair advantage due to the price.

2c. This is a opinion claim purely because they have no evidence that when the SawStop table saws hit the market, that will be the outcome.Throughout the quote they use assumptions to make their claim however these assumptions are only their opinions rather than facts.

2d. This claim is attempting to give off the impression that the SawStop table saws would crippled the other competitors leaving them bankrupted or losing money. Nonetheless this is not accurate because they  can not be sure what would happen if SawStop table saws were to be sold, since the SawStop table saws haven’t been sold.

3a. “Current table safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”

3b. This quote is declaring that the standards set to be considered as safe have been tested and failed to protect the consumers.

3c. This is a opinion claim because the quote states its been proven but doesn’t provide any evidence for the claim.

3d. This claim mainly expressing its opinion without stating any real facts because they make claim about how it has been proven to be ineffective. However the quote doesn’t back the statement up with any results such as revealing test results from a survey that proves how ineffective they claim table safety standards to be.

4a.”Flesh detection and braking technology and user friendly blade guard(s) have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when its touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

4b. This quote is stating that the cause of the injury could have been avoided because there is technology available to prevent this injury.

4c. This is a proposal claim because they are introducing the idea that the there is safer technology that could prevent injuries . However  Bosch doesn’t use that technology and continues to use a different technology even though the safer technology has been around for years. By doing so they are trying to convince everyone that this injury could  have been avoided because if they had the safer technology this injury would not have occurred.

4d. This claim is trying to convince everyone that the Bosch company is to blame for Wec’s injury. In doing so they introduce the idea that the there is alternative technology that could’ve avoided the injury. However rather then using that technology Bosch uses a technology that doesn’t stop the blade.

5a. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws.”

5b. This quote is declaring that someone has been able to reduce the number of injuries dealing with table saws by an enormous amount with their invention.

5c. This is a opinion claim because the quote states a claim, however they do not support their claim with any evidence.

5d. This quote is mainly stating an opinion without providing any evidence to back up the claim.

6a. “This week some of the nation’s biggest power tool companies sent their executives to Washington. They come to argue against tougher safety mandates for so-called table saws, the popular power tools with large open spinning blades.”

6b. This quote stating the biggest power tool companies of the nation sent a representative to voice their opinions on why they are against tougher safety mandates for table saws.

6c. This is a a judgmental claim because the quote is focusing on how the nations biggest power tools are coming to go against safety mandates for table saws. By doing so the quote is mainly portraying the power tools coming as a negative instead of just stating facts.

6d. This quote is focusing more so on the power tools coming to oppose the safety mandates for table saws rather than remaining neutral and stating the facts of the situation. Furthermore at the end of the quote, is a even more judgemental claim because the quote focuses only one part of what the power tool’s table saws do instead of stating everything the saw can do. In doing so, they are leaving information out so the audience will only see one side of a story rather than understanding everything about the power tool’s table saws.

7a. “What the industry saw as a problem was not the amputations and injuries occurring on their product, but the advent of a technology that could prevent those injuries.That was the problem we created.”

7b. The quote is declaring with sarcasm that the industry had a problem with his manufacturers and him because they were capable solving the problem that the industry couldn’t.

7c. This an opinion claim because the quote is not stating any supporting evidence to prove this is a true statement. Rather the claim is an opinion because the quote only portrays one side of the situation instead of both sides.

7d. This quote mainly focuses on the opinion of Gass because the quote only states his opinion and does not state the opinion of the opposing side. Furthermore, the quote doesn’t have any evidence to support his claim to make his claim a valid one.

8a. “People who have lost fingers, hand, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries. Those who who lack medical insurance suffer an unfathomable amount of pain, multiple surgeries, and a bill that they may never be able to pay so long as they they are unable to work.”

8b. This quote is stating the different injuries people associated with table saws have been through and stating how the affects of the injuries have impacted their lives.

8c. This is a proposal quote because the quote is trying to bring awareness to the injuries people deal with when they are using table saws. In addition to stating the injuries, they bring up the affects these injuries have on their lives.

8d. This quote goes through the injuries people have endured with table saws. Following the injuries these people have, the quote states how these injuries have affected the lives of the injured people. By doing so this quote is attempting to make the audience see the negative table saws caused bring up awareness about the situations that occur with table saws. To go along with that the quote brings up the affects that these injuries have on these people’s lives.

1A: A statement by the commissioner of the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission, said “Today’s unanimous decision by the Commission to approve an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on table saw blade contact injuries should send a clear signal to consumers and the industry that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year.

1C. the type of claim stated in this quote is a proposal claim.

1D. This claim made by the commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a logical claim, but involves no factual or certain claims. Only claims of certainty and reliance on another mans word that may not come true.

2A. Manufacturer

Members of the Power Tool Institute claim that “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”

2C. This is a factual claim.

2D. This claim is factual and brings up a strong point that counters the side for safety stops on saws. It is a logical claim and is worthy for debate. It is a persuasive claim and causes readers to re-think other facts.

3A. injured plaintiff

“Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

3C. This is a factual claim but at the same time somewhat opinionated.

3D. Coming from an injured plaintiff, this claim turns out to be very persuasive and logical but also very one sided. the plaintiff claims that if the safety mechanism was installed onto his saw, this injury would have never occurred. Which is true but a consumer also needs to know and understand the safety precautions needed to handle the tool that is known to be dangerous.

4A. News Reporter

“But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.”

4B. News reporter discuses the absence of the saw safety mechanism in large named brands.

4C. This is a factual claim.

4D. This claim made by the reporter brings up a very ghastly flaw made by these saw companies. It brings up the question as to why saw companies refuse to implement this safety feature.

5A. Customer

“To hold Bosch liable for not making a bad business decision that would cost them lots of money seems a bit unreasonable if not ludicrous.”

5C. This claim is an opinion

5D. This claim is very logical but at the same time is arguable. This shows that customers do understand the thought process behind these saw companies and understand the reasoning behind the decisions. This is a logical and accurate claim.

6A. Industry Spokesperson

“SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.”

6B. Spokesperson stating a fact for all unaware consumers.

6C this is a factual claim.

6D. This spokesperson is using very logical and accurate information in their claim. It is a claim that tries to push away the people who are attacking these companies. It’s a reasonable claim and is accurate.

7A. Government Official

“The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs.”

7B. A claim made by Government officials stating that no matter the cost peoples health and well being are most important.

7C. this is an opinionated claim.

7D. This claim is logical and persuasive but not reasonable or accurate. Making a financial decision that costs millions of dollars is not always an accessible decision, especially for a company that cannot afford to do that

 

 

1. Manufacturers

1A. “Blade guards must be removed for many kinds of cuts made on a table saw, so they cannot be used all the time.  Automatic safety devices on table saws, in contrast, can be used for virtually every cut of wood and other non-conductive material.”

1B. Blade guards are not functional functional for every different use of a saw, whereas automatic safety devices work effectively at all times.

1C. This is an evaluation claim because the usage of the two different types of safety methods are being compared and evaluated.

1D. This claim is very accurate. The only grey area is that it can be used for “virtually any cut of wood”. That leaves it a little bit open-ended as to how much you can do with it while remaining safe. Other than that it simply states the functionality of two different safety methods in relation to table saws. The manufacturer wanted it to be known that unlike other table saws with temporary blade guards, automatic safety devices work effectively all of the time.
2. Customers

2A. “He says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

2B. Automatic safety devices could have prevented the saw accident in the past from happening.

2C. This could be interpreted as a proposal claim because he is suggesting that had the technology been in use at the time, the accident would not have happened.

2D. This claim is accurate because the automatic safety technology is effective without fail. Therefore, had he been using the technology then, his mistake would not have resulted in an injury.
3. Industry Spokespeople

3A. “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” says Susan Young, who represents Black & Decker, Bosch, Makita and other power tool companies.

3B. Anybody has the option or ability to purchase SawStop

3C. This is a factual claim, simply because it is a fact that this product is available to anybody who desires to purchase it.

3D. This claim is true but also very broad. Saying that it is available in the marketplace does not disclose what marketplaces and it could be a broad term for having to order it online. Nevertheless, it is true because regardless of where it may be sold, it still is available for anybody to buy.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4A. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,” says Bob Adler, a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was holding meetings on the issue this week.

4B. Somebody created the technology to prevent virtually all table saw related injuries.

4C. This is a simple causal claim because the effect of the technology created is stated.

4D. This claim is accurate because it is just going over factual things. It is true that somebody created this technology, and it is true that it significantly reduced injuries. Who it is that invented it and how the technology itself works are unclear in the claim, but that does not take away from the validity of what was stated.
5. Injured Plaintiffs

5A. “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.”

5B. A man stated that one company colluded with its competitors to keep automatic safety technology from being a required feature on table saws.

5C. This is clearly an opinion claim. The man is a disgruntled and injured plaintiff, and provided no evidence as to how there was collusion between companies in his claim.

5D. This claim makes no good point at all. It accuses companies of unjust acts with no evidence to support the claim. Also, what “competitors” are involved in the collusion? This claim is not specific enough and not supported by any facts.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6A.  “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

6B. The man argues that his traumatic injury would not have occurred, had the automatic safety technology on table saws not been rejected by major companies.

6C. This is an opinion claim because the man is just assuming that this technology would have prevented him from sustaining his injury.

6D. This claim is somewhat accurate. Given the rate of effectiveness of the automatic safety technology, the man probably would not have gotten hurt had in been in effect. Nevertheless, it is virtually effective almost all of the time. That phrasing leaves a little bit of room for error so assuming he would be safe is not fully accurate.
7. Government Officials

7A. “Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.”

7B. Approximately 67,300 people were medically treated for blade contact injuries in 2007 and 2008, with an associated injury cost of roughly $2.36 billion each year.

7C. This is a factual claim without a doubt. There are clear cut statistics in this claim that support the claim of the number of these accidents being a big issue.

7D. This claim is clear and precise in pointing out how many injuries are sustained from blade contact and the expensive repercussions as a result. There are statistics which are also cited as to where the information comes from. Numbers do not lie and it is very hard to disagree with statistically factual claims.
8. News Reporters

8A. “In other words, let consumers decide. Young says many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.”

8B. The assumption is that consumers will not be in favor of paying $100 t0 $300 extra for the SawStop technology.

8C. This claim is completely an opinion claim. The reporter is assuming people would not want to pay extra money for enhanced safety features. That is not something you can just assume until the product is made available to everybody and the consumers then speak for themselves.

8D. This claim is unclear and not supported. It is simply an assumption that anybody could make. There is nothing within this claim that can back this opinion up.

8E. I refute this opinion-based claim. I disagree with what is being said because to me personally, a few hundred extra dollars in exchange for guaranteed safety and all of my fingers is a deal that I would always take. I feel that more people would actually agree with that opinion because safety comes first, and operating a table saw without automatic safety technology is a true risk.

1a. “The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws.”

1b. Many tool manufacturers are strongly offended by the idea of making safety features, like the Safe Saw, mandatory.

1c. The claim that manufacturers are against mandatory safety features is an opinion. It is vague in that in does not state whether the manufacturers will fight against Safe Saw from becoming mandatory or they are just against it as an idea.

1d. The claim has some evidence to back it up but cannot be proven. The evidence is shown in that many manufacturers do not offer safety features in any of their models. If they were not against safety features, they would likely offer them in their products. However, these manufacturers may not be offering safety features due to other factors like cost so it can’t be proven that they are solely against the concept of mandatory safety features.

2a.”All saws should have this technology, Wheeler says. “I mean, we’re dealing with human beings.”

2b. Wheeler claims that it is humane to implement universal Safe Saw technology.

2c. This claim is an opinion.

2d. This claim is logical. Wheeler witnessed firsthand one of his employees using Safe Saw which prevented him from having a traumatic injury. It makes sense that Wheeler, who often sees the pain and money that goes into table saw injuries, would be for adding it to all table saws.

3a.”The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation provided a statement: “Safety has historically been one of the Bosch principles…and is reflected in our slogan ‘Invented for life.'”

3b. Bosch, a company that reject Saw Stop, claims that safety is one of the company’s most important principles.

3c. This claim is an opinion.

3d. This claim is not supported by the company’s actions. They stated that they care about safety yet they do not offer any safe technology on table saws. If they truly valued safety, one would think that they would passionately accept Saw Stop technology despite the added cost.

4a.”What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,” says Bob Adler, a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

4b. Bob Adler claims that Safe Saw technology reduces all table saw injuries.

4c.This claim is a factual claim.

4d. This claim is reasonable and accurate. Safe Saw technology has been proven to stop at the detection of skin which undoubtedly has reduced injuries for those who use the saw. Adler has not claimed that Safe Saw eliminates all injuries, only that they  reduce the amount of injuries, which is certainly true.

5a.”Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

5b. Wec, a victim of a table saw injury, claims that his injury could have been prevented if table saw manufacturers accepted Safe Saw technology.

5c. This is an opinion claim.

5d. This claim is somewhat accurate. If Safe Saw technology was accepted by manufacturers and made available to Wec then his injury most likely would not have occurred if he bought the safe saw. However, it can’t be proven that Wec, without knowing that he was going to be injured, would have bought the Safe Saw over the traditional saw for more money.

6a. “SawStop was a “game changer,” says Osorio’s attorney, Richard Sullivan, whose firm has been involved in most of the cases.”

6b. Sullivan, a personal injury lawyer, claims that Saw Stop is the invention that will hold saw manufacturers liable for injuries.

6c. This claim is an opinion.

6d. This claim is reasonable. Sullivan was an attorney in a table saw injury case. To win the case, Sullivan argued that his client’s injury would not have happened if Ryobi had implemented Saw Stop technology. The jury agreed and Osorio received $1.5 million. Many cases using Saw Stop as their defense have been just as successful.

8a. “Society will save money if safer saws are required.”

8b. The claim is that mandatory safe saws will save society money.

8c. The claim is an evaluation.

8d. This claim could possibly be accurate but there is no solid evidence stated to support it. The author merely states that by reducing hospital costs by lowering the amount of preventable saw injuries, the Safe Saw will save society money. This may be true but there is no research given besides the one fact that is stated that society spends $2 billion per year on preventable table saw injuries. Also, the manufacturers are not considered at all in this claim. Will the amount that society saves be worth the amount that manufacturers will have to spend?

9a.”They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

9b. Gass claims that saw manufacturers are rejecting his product because they do not believe that safety will sell.

9c. This is an opinion claim.

9d. This claim is reasonable. Most companies make decisions based solely on profit so if they do not think that Safe Saw technology would sell, that would explain why so little of them have added it to their products.