Safer Saws Part 2 – Ally Hodgson

1. Manufacturers:

Claim: Manufacturers say the price of their saws would rise with SawStop which would eliminate lower priced bench-top saws and give SawStop an unfair advantage.

*The part of the claim I focused on is bolded since more than one claim is given.

Claim Type: Consequential; this claim is saying the adopting the safer saw technology would end up giving SawStop an advantage.

Claim Evaluation: This is not a good claim. I do not understand what they are trying to say at all.

2. Customers:

Claim: Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.  About 4,000 of those injuries – or more than 10 every day – are amputations.

Table saw injuries cost the United States approximately $2 billion every year.

Claim Type: Consequential

Claim Evaluation: This claim makes sense and really appeals to people’s brains as well as their pockets.

3. Industry Spokespeople:

Claim: This claim is made by Larry Okrend, the Editor in Chief of HANDY magazine. Okrend says, “almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.”

Claim Type: Consequential

Claim Evaluation: This claim is not contradictory and does make sense. The claim is accurate because there is a risk in almost anything. While using a pen, as safe as it seems, someone could hurt them-self. This claim is very supportive to his argument because it is showing how unnecessary the SawStop is.

4.Injured Plaintiffs:

Claim: A plaintiff, Ryszard Wec, says his injury could have been avoided if the manufacturers had adopted the SawStop.

Claim Type: Consequential; Wec is saying not adopting the SawStop was bad because his injury could have been prevented. 

Claim Evaluation:  I think Wec’s claim is a very good one. It says something that is very substantial and powerful; that his injury could have been avoided. People who hear that would be very persuaded if they heard his claim.

5. Personal Injury Lawyers:

Claim: SawStop is a safety device that can detect skin contact with the saw blade, and stops the blade within milliseconds.

Claim Type: Definitional

Claim Evaluation: This is a good claim because it makes sense.

6. Government Officials:

Claim: Inez Tenenbaum, a chairman on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, states that many injuries from table saws are gruesome.

Claim Type: Consequential; Tenenbaum is saying table saws can cause gruesome injuries.

Claim Evaluation: This claim makes sense and is persuasive. It is a fact that appeals to people’s emotions.

7. News Reporters:

Claim: An writer, Chris Arnold, says, “Gass’ saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. “

Claim Type: Definitional; he explains how the SawStop works.

Claim Evaluation: This claim is informative and gets the point across. It appeals to people’s brains and makes them think.

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

1 Response to Safer Saws Part 2 – Ally Hodgson

  1. davidbdale says:

    1. I can explain.
    3. Someone could hurt himself.
    3. Really? Because a pen can hurt me I don’t need a safer saw?
    4. He certainly wouldn’t have been injured, but is that what he’s trying to prove?
    6. An arrow in the eye is gruesome too. Do we need to mandate safer arrows?
    7. Punctuation: Gass’s

    Generally good, safe work, Ally.
    Grade Recorded

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