“Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell”
Paraphrase: In the eyes of the opposing manufacturers, safer products don’t sell as regular
This claim is very bold towards Gass because they are trying to send him a big message. The accuracy could be true because these are manufacturers of companies that would know either or not a product sells. It definitely comes off as arrogant but businesses are sometimes like that.
I disagree with this statement but I wouldn’t know what’s sells because I’m not well informed about that type of business.
“To hold Bosch liable for not making a bad business decision that wold cost them lots of money seems a bit unreasonable if not ludicrous.”
Paraphrase: Bosch should be held accountable for denying the SawStop just to make their own version
This claim takes a shot at Bosch and Bosch’s copycat product. The accuracy depends on opinion while the persuasion quality shows enthusiasm. “…if not ludicrous” adds emphasis on how much the customers disagrees with Bosch.
“The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could, by now, have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.”
Paraphrase: not needed
The safety factor is no doubt reasonable but being bad for business could be a major set back. The set up of the claim helps defend why the SawStop was made but as a whole, questions the legitimacy of the product for business.
Consumer Safety Advocates
“I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.”
Paraphrase: not needed
I think it’s safe to say this claim is very reasonable. The accuracy can be backed up by statistics of actual injuries from table saws. Although, this claim does not involve evidence.
“I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.”
Paraphrase: Manufactures should worry more about the people’s safety while using the saws rather than cost.
The accuracy of this claim depends on opinion but I’d imagine most would agree. The claim itself doesn’t have to persuade because it makes you think of what is the good choice rather than the bad. It’s reasonable to persuade for the greater good.
Personal Injury Lawyers
“Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.”
Paraphrase: The manufactures refuse to use new safer technologies
Evaluating that the manufacturers’ negligence to make proper safety changes to their product is “unfortunate”. I totally agree with claim given it is reasonable that we shouldn’t want people to get hurt. Some people still might not want the changes to the products even after an injury.
“The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work.”
Paraphrase: no need
Changing and switching to safer saw design is shown to be reasonable in the claim. The evidence in the claim that supports it is saving money by reducing medical bills and lost work. The claim’s persuasion is the incentive of saving money.
“In other words, let consumers decide.”
Paraphrase: Letting consumers decide whether or not safety should be implemented would be for their best interest
Letting the consumers decide would be reasonable because the consumers are the one’s who use the products, not the manufacturers. The claim is short but powerful because it is intended for the consumer’s wellbeing. The persuasion is to stop worrying so much on the business aspect and worry about the workers that use it.