Delighted customers claim:
“Owners of commercial woodworking shops who have embraced the technology are more than willing to pay a premium for saws that reduce injuries for many reasons. Injuries are negative in themselves; they cause downtime; they cause increases in worker compensation insurance premiums; they harm the shop’s reputation; they force shops to rehire and retrain replacement workers.”
The customers are satisfied with the new stop technology because injuries cause the shops downtime, hurts their reputation, and forces them to rehire and retrain replacement workers.
The claim being made is a consequential claim.
The claim that is made talks alot about the negativities of injuries in the woodshop workplace. It explains how injuries hurts the business along with the employees being hurt by the saws. It’s persuasive enough to let you know how bad injuries are to a company and that they need a solution, but should talk more about the saw along with it and how it has helped with reducing the injuries. We understand that the injuries are bad from this claim, but it doesn’t tell you how the saw stopping mechanism has changed this. It just seems like they assume your suppose to know it has changed all these negatives for the better. It basically describes all the problems that the safe saw would help a company out with though to create a better business for the workshops.
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 
Thanks for posting early, Brett. It gives me a chance to urge you to make some changes to your analysis.
First, you’re quoting me. That’s a pretty big mistake. Not because I mind being quoted, but because I’m not a constituent to the argument at all. Also because it doesn’t indicate that you read or examined any of the source material. Please choose someone from one of the readings or podcasts to quote.
Secondly, you make the common mistake of imagining that a claim has to be compelling, complete, well-sourced, and persuasive all by itself, along with containing its own evidence. A claim is usually a tiny part of an overall argument. Some sentences in an argument contain half a dozen claims. They all add up to an argument that’s persuasive or fails to persuade, but they don’t individually have to carry the weight of persuasion.
The counterclaim that the author has failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince you of anything IS NOT a refutation of the author’s argument. To refute, you need to disprove. Claiming to be unconvinced disproves nothing. I can’t prove there’s an afterlife, but I can still make arguments in its favor.
A claim fails if it provides the wrong sort of evidence to prove itself. A claim fails if it contradicts itself. A claim fails if its contrary is equally possible.
The paragraph you quote makes two substantial claims: First, that shop owners who like SawStop think it’s worth the money. Second, that those customers cite various advantages of reduced injuries.
The paragraph doesn’t try to prove that such advantages are real, nor does it try to convince you or anyone to buy SawStop. It merely describes SawStop customers.
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
No response to feedback.
Grade Recorded.
LikeLike