Evan Horner – Saw Safety

1. “Wec claims that “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 it is touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

2. What Wec is trying to say is that the technology for safer and more user-friendly equipment has been available for sometime now and that if Bosch and it’s competitors had adopted these safety measures his permanent injury sustained in 2007 could have easily been prevented.

3.The Claim from this constituent is an evaluation claim.

4. The claim set forth by Wec seems fairly accurate to me. Wec sustained an injury using a Bosch miter saw that was not equipped with the latest breakthrough in saw safety even though it was offered to them several years before the accident. Therefore Bosch deserves to take some responsibility due to the fact that they turned down the potentially life saving modifications to their products, causing people like Wec to be severely injured when they could have easily prevented it.

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

1 Response to Evan Horner – Saw Safety

  1. davidbdale says:

    1. It would be helpful to know who made this claim, Evan. I can’t tell from the quote who characterized Wec’s claim this way and since only a few words are actually quoted, what Wec said is not as clear as it needs to be to evaluate Wec’s claim. We could evaluate the claim of the person you’ve quoted, maybe, but we don’t know who that is.
    2. Are you sure? Is Wec saying that “user-friendly blade guards” would have prevented his injury? Or does his claim require “flesh-sensing technology”? Not having his original quote to read complicates the question.
    3. Partly, yes, but more importantly a consequential claim.
    4. What’s the latest breakthrough? You know and I know, but you can’t assume only you and I are reading the post, Evan. “Life-saving”? Are you listening to yourself? Your claim is hiding in the phrase “some responsibility,” Evan. Is Bosch required to adopt every safety feature just because it’s “breakthrough”? If they don’t adopt every feature available, how much responsibility is “some”?

    Fails for Grammar Rule 2.
    Go to Grammar Basics (always available in the sidebar) for help finding the fatal errors. Fix them to reveal your true grade and this note disappears. 🙂

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