1. 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.
2. Ryszard Wec is claiming that if the new “flesh detecting technology” had been put on the saw that he was using he would not have had a permanent injury, and he would not have had to deal with the trauma of that accident either.
3. This claim is a casual claim.
4. There is accuracy to this claim because if the saw did have the “flesh detecting technology” on it then it would not have been such a permanent injury but the saw could have still done damage to him, so it would not have been that he just got a little cut and he is fine now. The quality of this claim is not too great because he is just saying that his injury could have been prevented not that it would have been prevented. He is not saying that there would not have been an injury if he had the new safety features on the saw too. This claim is reasonable because people will believe his claim, he is an injured man and people who work with saws know that injuries can happen, but if a type of blade can help injuries not happen, then why not have it on saws. He is not as persuasive as he could be with this claim, but people will think about it and agree with him because they believe the more safety you can have on a tool like a saw the better because just in case something does happen it will be minimal damage thanks to the new safety technology.