Safe Saw- Eddie Jahn

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.

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

1 Response to Safe Saw- Eddie Jahn

  1. davidbdale says:

    I’m happy to see this, Eddie, less than 24 hours late. I was worried we’d lose our class’s perfect record for posting assignments.

    You should have quoted Wec in 1) instead of paraphrasing him, so we could judge his actual claim instead of your interpretation of his claim. 2) is the place for that interpretation. Wec’s overall argument is certainly a consequence argument, among its other claims.

    I don’t see the difference you see between couldn’t and wouldn’t have been injured. And I doubt very much that Wec is claiming that he would have been injured, just less injured, by a saw with SawStop, unless you’re calling a little nick an injury. The quality of an argument is not judged by how much sympathy people will have for the victim of an accident, Eddie, but we can talk about both, such as when we say, “Although the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for his injuries, the jury nonetheless awarded him a million dollars.” It’s also not a valid argument to ask “why not?” You might as well argue that all cars should be built like tanks and all playground swings should be limited to a twelve-inch arc. They’re both safer, but . . .

    Grade Recorded with 10% late penalty.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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