Safer Saws: Nina

Manufacturers: “Steve Gass claims that he has been driving a force between himself and other businesses willing to buy products from inventors. He tried to establish other table saw makes to license his technology.” This would be a recommendation or proposal claim, because Gass is suggesting that his saw his guaranteed safe and he specifies the differences between his saw and the technique used to prevent injury versus other market sold saws. Gass’ saw better known as the Sawstop, jams a break directly into the teeth of the blade stopping the action immediately. Whereas the competitor saw, the Reax, uses a small electrical charge to sense human flesh.

Customers: “Customers have yet to report injury from the safer saw. Over 2,000 saws were sold and customers have received satisfaction in their purchase of the Sawstop.” Even victims of previous saw incidents want all table saws to include a SawStop safety brake. In comparison to the competitors, none have made complaints or medical incident reports that would lead to customer dissatisfaction. The claims that is being made is an evaluative claim, because no complaints have yet to be informed by the public about the us of the saw, no flaws or malfunctions can be associated with the product.

Industry Spokespeople: Spokespeople claim that the National Consumers League called in injured woodworkers and had a heated debate in Washington against lawmakers and regulators to make the StopSaw safety brake mandatory on all table saws. The claim being presented is a proposal claim. Past table saw victims want other to be safe and provide feedback on their experience with the SafeSaw product and advises others to use the product as well.

New Reporters: “This new technology will save students and woodworkers from further or future accidents.” This is an evaluative claim. The claim makes a judgement stating that no one can possibly be hurt using this new technology.

Steve Gass: “And it seemed doable”. Gass made this statment after being asked if a serious injury can be inflicted if you ran your finger through the blade fast enough. This is a evaluative claim. Gass thinks, but is unsure that it would harm someone, but it would be logical to believe that someone would get hurt by putting their finger near a saw.

Safety advocates: “The machine will foresee difficulty in the future after being immediately stopped at the presence of human flesh” This is a casual claim by advocates who understand that the machine has to be put at an immediate stop once human skin is detected by the machine. The action used to stop the saw can damage the product due to how fast the the saw reacts to human contact.

News Reporters: ” It is unclear weather consumer products safety commission will pass a rule requiring all saws to have an active injury prevention system built in them.” This is a casual claim, only under certain or extreme circumstances would the Consumer Products Safety Commission require a big change in its merchandise.

This entry was posted in nina, 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