1. Manufactures
“A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” This quote is taken from a website called Pro Tools Review. http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit
This is a consequential claim, this claim is relevant because the Pro Tools Review website are talking about how the 30,000 annual table saw injuries are not due to flesh contacting with the blade. Manufacturers are claiming that the annual injuries are not due to contact with the blade to make a point that the safe saw technology is not needed in all saws. The manufacturers are claiming that if there were safe saw technology there would not be more injuries or less injuries.
2. Customers
“Table saws account for a significant percentage of power tool accidents, partly because they’re so widely used. Many table saw accidents occur because users permanently remove the blade guard, splitter and anti-kickback pawls. Doing so may make using the tool more convenient, but it’s also infinitely more dangerous” This quote is taken from Larry Okrend, Editor in Chief, HANDY Magazine.
This is a definitional claim, the claim is relevant because Larry Okrend is saying that table saw users take parts off of their saw to make them “more convenient, but also more dangerous”, if they take these parts off of their saws they do not think that safety is a number one priority. The safe saw technology is built into the saw, so it is more “convenient than blade guard, and splitters” , but who is to say that the table saw users will ever buy the safe saw technology. They will not want to spend extra money to replace the blade, and the extra piece of equipment.
3. Industry Spokesperson
“To our knowledge no manufacturer is anxious to pay SawStop an 8% license fee for this technology anytime soon, especially when the manufacturing for the technology alone will increase the average price of a table saw by anywhere from $150-$200 by the time it hits the shelves.” This quote is taken again from the Pro Tools Review website.
This is a consequential claim, it is a relevant claim because the power saw industry does not want to lose sales of their tools. If the power saw industry has to put SawStop on all of their saws, money will be given to the Saw Stop industry and the technology will make the saw increase in price to where every day customers will not be able to afford the saws.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates
“Technologies exist that prevent serious injuries if a person comes in contact with the blade.” This is a quote from the National Consumer League from the website http://www.nclnet.org/health/99-safety/567-facts-at-a-glance-the-inherent-danger-of-table-saws.
This is a definitional claim, this claim is relevant because the National Consumer League is stating that technologies exist and that people should use the technologies. This claim is not successful because saw owners do not want to spend the extra money and buy brand new saws just for the technology if the saw owner has never had an injury with the saw they currently own.
5. Injured Plaintiffs
“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.” This quote is from Ryszard Wec and it is from the website http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/Injured_Man_Says_Bosch_Tool_Lobbied_Feds_to_Keep_Safer_Power_Saws_off_the_Market.htm
This claim is a consequential claim, it is effective because Ryszard Wec is a customer of a table saw who has been injured, so other customers will hear his claim and believe him because they could be the next one injured. Other customers of table saws will find this claim effective because they would rather have the technology now that it is available so that an accident like Wec’s will not happen to them.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers
” The Power Tool Institute, an industry group that represents Black & Decker and Bosch, said that the price of their table saws with the safety devices would “increase dramatically,” eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.” This is a quote from The Scmidt Lawfirm from the website http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-injury-lawyer/.
This is an evaluation claim, this claim is relevant because the lawfirm is giving an example of a industry group saying that the table saws would be available to an unfair market of people which is to richer people and the lower class customers would be not able to afford the saws with the safe saw technology.
7. Government Officials
“When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet preventable injuries were unacceptable.” This is a quote from
Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum from the website http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/tenenbaum10052011.pdf
This is an evaluation claim, the claim is effective because a government official is addressing the issue of safer table saws, so safer table saws has gotten the attention of the government because of the danger of operating power tools. The government is sending out this claim to ensure the customers of power saws to use new technology that will prevent injuries.
8. News Reporters
“The major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws.” This quote is from Chris Arnold of NPR from the website Ask me how I made this link, Eddie.
This is an evaluation claim, this claim is relevant because Chris Arnold is saying how major tool companies have not been interested in putting the Safe Saw technology on to their saws. This is effective because the major companies not putting the Safe Saw technology on their saws is putting the customer at risk, and not giving them a choice on if they could have the technology and use it to not become injured.
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 
I’m glad to see you’ve posted early, Eddie. I also appreciate the quality of the claims you’ve found. Focusing your attention on the safety equipment already available and the types of injuries that most often occur gives your entry a valuable theme.
LikeLike
1. Your point is validly made, Eddie, but much too wordily. First you restate the point entirely to prove its relevance. It doesn’t prove relevance and we don’t need to read it again. Then you make the point a third time that most injuries don’t involve contact with the blade.
You could easily say just this: “The manufacturers make the causal claim that a large percentage of injuries would not be prevented by SawStop technology.” They’d be right. But that certainly does not mean (as you say it does) that SawStop wouldn’t prevent any injuries.
Grammar Note: You mean more or fewer injuries, not more or less injuries. Rule 5. (Grammar Basics
2. I’m not clear on what is being defined here, Eddie. Yes, it’s true users disable their safety equipment because they prefer convenience to safety. Your rhetorical question doesn’t argue or refute this claim. Only positive statements of your own can do either. The question of whether buyers will choose safer saws or cheaper saws has nothing to do with Okrend’s claim, as far as I can tell.
Grammar Note: Periods go inside quotes ALWAYS. Grammar Rule 7.
3. You’re right that adding SawStop technology will increase the cost of saws. But the claim that customers won’t be able to afford them is your own, not contained in the claim you quote.”
4. I guess it’s a definition claim if you mean it defines safe saw as one that won’t cut your hand off. It seems very much causal as well. It does not say, as you say it does, that people should use such technologies; it only says they exist. And your objection that it’s expensive is irrelevant to the claim.
5. Wec’s argument is certainly consequential. Whether it’s effective depends on what he’s trying to prove. Is he trying to convince others to buy safer saws? No. He’s trying to get money from Bosch for failing to protect his hand. Does saying that such technology exists prove Bosch’s liability, Eddie? That’s the question.
Punctuation Note: Single and Double Quotes. Rule 11.
6. It’s definitely an evaluation claim. But the law firm is in no way trying to defend the rights of poor people to buy safe saws.
7. You’re mostly right here, Eddie. What’s most interesting about this claim may be the time frame. Apparently, the Commission is again considering the issue. The relevance of the claim is partly that it categorizes saw injuries unacceptable. They may also be about to say that they’re also in the category: “we should do something about this.”
8. Yes, it’s an evaluation claim. The most important word in it is “failed.” You interpret that to mean “not interested.” But you’ve also made economic arguments about saw costs. Would it be correct to say the saw makers “can’t afford” to use the technology?
Reread “Claim Types” if you need a better understanding of the relevance of claims to a particular argument, Eddie. We can talk about this at your conference, if you like.
Grade Posted.
LikeLike
I will be rewriting this now knowing the grammar rules and rereading the “Claim Types” article, but I am still unsure about the claim types. This assignment was difficult, but now with your comments I can see what you are looking for and that you can let me know which claim it actually is and then I can look at the “Claim Types” article and read it and look at the quote I found and compare them. This comment was very helpful, it helped me understand the assignment more than originally.
LikeLike
I appreciate your comment, Eddie, but I can’t quite tell if you are hoping I will respond by telling you what type claims you’ve identified in each of your numbered items. If so, please help me by specifying which items are giving you trouble, and I’ll be happy to help.
LikeLike