Safer Saws part 2 — Dale Hamstra

1. Manufacturer – “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual table saw injuries (in the U.S.) are due to contact with the blade”

This would be an evaluation claim. Bosch is saying that very few of the annual table saw injuries actually result from touching the blade. The majority end up resulting from kickback. This is a strong claim because it is saying that the SafeSaw will not prevent the majority of injuries

2. Customers – “Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers” — National Consumers League

This is an evaluation claim. They are saying that the current safety measures are not enough. on its own it is not a very persuasive claim, but with more support it becomes a very strong point.

3. Industry spokes people – “Every commercial job site and institutional shop should be equipped with this type of saw” — Larry Okrend

This is a proposal claim. He believes that every shop should have this technology. It is a strong claim, that makes sense. However, it is not convincing enough on its own.

4. Consumer Safety advocates – “The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs” — National Consumer League

This would be a proposal claim. They are saying that the benefit outweighs the cost. This is not a strong  claim because it is not necessarily true that the benefit will outweigh the costs.

5. Injured Plaintiffs – “Wec said his permanent and traumatic injury could have been prevented”

This would be a consequential claim because he is saying his injury is because of the fact he was not using a safe saw. This claim is not very strong on its own. He is not being very specific about why it could have been prevented. However, it would make a good argument with more support.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers – “The manufacturers have refused to adopt it”

This is a evaluation claim because he is trying to say that the SawStop is out there and the manufacturer refuses to use it. This is a weak claim because there is more behind it than the manufacturer saying no. There could be very good reasons why the manufacturer does not want it.

7. Government Officials – “Consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008”

This would be a consequential claim because she is saying that 67,300 people had blade contact injuries because there was not SawStop in place. If there was SawStop in place many of these injuries would not have happened. This is a strong claim because it gives solid numbers and facts, and clearly portrays that SawStop would prevent many of these injuries.

8. News Reporters – “Gass’ saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. ”

This is a definitional claim. He is defining how the safe saw works. It is a strong claim that makes sense and provides a persuasive argument.

 

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

1 Response to Safer Saws part 2 — Dale Hamstra

  1. davidbdale says:

    1. Nice.
    2. On its own, if it were true and supported, it would be very useful in proving something. But what? To be effective, the claim needs to be relevant and effective to prove what’s intended.
    3. Granted, as always, claims don’t prove themselves and need support to be convincing. But if supported, what would this claim prove in turn? That every shop owner should choose to buy the saw? Or that every shop owner should be compelled to buy the saw?
    4. I know I haven’t been entirely clear on this, Dale, but the claim itself is extremely strong, and is also clear if the terms have been well-defined. Is saving a hand worth $200? That benefit is clearly worth that cost.
    5. Again, demanding more support is beside the point. The important part of this claim is that the injury could have been prevented. That’s certainly true. The effectiveness of the claim depends on what it proves. That he should have been more careful? That he should have bought a safer saw? That the Bosch company is liable for his injury?
    6. Good point. The claim hinges on the word “refused.” Does that accurately characterize their action?
    7. Actually, the facts of this claim may be in dispute.
    8. Yep. Punctuation: Gass’s

    Good work overall, Dale. Clearly made you think about claims and their validity.

    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