Safe Saws – pomegranate

  1. Manufacturer: “…it will detect that in less than a thousandth of a second.” This is said to show how long the saw actually needs to stop itself from slicing your finger off. The person looking to buy this machine would be interested in a fact this important, for it could be the deciding factor for if they buy it or not. This claim would be considered quantitative because it includes facts.
  2. Injured Plaintiffs: “…hope you aren’t one of the unlucky 10.” This statement implies that people have gotten hurt while using this machine. This also can have consumers question how reliable the safe saw actually is. This claim would be considered to be a numerical claim because it shows a real-life number for the amount of people that have been or could be injured.
  3. Person Injury Lawyers: “…a little nervous.” Steve Gass says how he’s nervous to try his own machine. It should however be something that he is proud of and has confidence in. He shouldn’t let people know that he is nervous to use his own creation. This claim would be considered evaluative because it implies that the machine may not work like they say it will.
  4. News Reporter: “This is a man who has faith in his creation.” This proves that the creator is proud and trusts his product. This claim is evaluative because it literally evaluates the quality of the product after the creator himself stuck his finger in the saw for the sole purpose to show that his product is reliable.
  5. News Reporter: “We bet you’ve never seen this before.” This suggests that the customer is not familiar with any saw quite like this one. This one saves your finger, as other saws have the tendency to not quite stop when your finger gets caught. This would be considered a proposal claim because of the use of words “we bet.” They aren’t quite sure if you’ve seen anything like it, but it is believed people have not.
  6. Consumer Safety Advocates: “…saves a finger, mangles the machine.” This shows that the machine is reliable in terms of ruining itself when in the presence of a finger. The fingers conductivity will cause the saw, which is moving at 5000 rpm, to completely stop and ruin the mechanics. This is in fact a causal because it is clearly described what caused the machine to break.
  7. Industry Spokesperson: “Energy has to go somewhere when it stops.” This suggests that when the saw abruptly stops, that energy cannot just go away, it must go somewhere. The energy is what causes the mechanics to break because all of the energy from the rotation is forced onto the mechanics so that it can save your finger. This is a proposal claim because it proposes the ides that the energy must go somewhere.
  8. Industry Spokesperson: “Salty, wet finger.” This suggests that the finger you use to be sawing with is usually sweaty. Which will make the machine know that that is what they should pick up on in order to stop the entire machine from cutting your entire finger off. This claim would be considered evaluative because it tells the condition of the finger for the machine to know to stop.
This entry was posted in pomegranate, Safer Saws. Bookmark the permalink.

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