Safer Saws – Marty Bell

1.”The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer,” said the Power Tool Institute.

2. The Power Tool Institute is claiming that adding the saw stop technology will increase the price per product for the consumer by between $150-$200 .

3. This claim is called a consequential claim.

4.  The claim from the Power Tool Institute is relevant for anyone planning on buying a product with the safer saw technology. The large increase of cost could be enough to persuade a working man to buy a less safe saw and be more carefull with it, instead of paying extra. The increased cost is a reasonable argument to why the technology should not be implemented, since many working men can not afford to spend the extra cash. A consumers lack of interest in paying more makes the Power Tool Institutes’ claim an effective argument against mandatory saw stop technology.

This entry was posted in X Stop Saw. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Safer Saws – Marty Bell

  1. davidbdale says:

    Marty, thanks for posting early. It gives me a chance to correct your serious error. You’re not the first to make it, and you could have avoided it by reading comments I have made to your classmates, but it’s a fatal error, so please fix it.

    You haven’t chosen a quote from a constituent to the argument from the source material. Instead you’re quoting me. I don’t mind being quoted, but I have nothing to prove in this argument, so I’m not making claims (except to state what I believe others’ positions to be). Read and/or listen to the source material and choose a quote from what you find there.

    Punctuation Note: FAILS FOR GRAMMAR. Follow the Grammar Basics link from the Resources category in the sidebar to learn about single quotes and double quotes.

    I agree there’s a resemblance claim in comparing saw safety technology to air bags, but I’m not sure anybody actually makes that claim (except for me and I don’t count). Find your own evidence of a similarity claim please.

    Your argument analysis (4) doesn’t begin to describe a resemblance claim. The demonstration Steve Gass performs with his finger shows his saw to be safer than a traditional table saw. How that makes it similar to an air bag I can’t see. And the conclusion you draw that it should be mandatory because it can prevent injury is completely unjustified in this context. Even if the saw were identical to an air bag, neither should be mandatory on that basis alone. I could prevent passenger injuries by filling the car interior with water, but that wouldn’t be a good argument for mandating that everyone be forced to drive around in an aquarium. Be careful not to over-conclude, Marty. Sorry. You’re not done here yet.

  2. davidbdale says:

    No response to feedback.
    Also still fails for grammar.
    Grade Recorded.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s