Safer Saws — SmilingDogTheProfWants

PROFESSOR NOTE

Smiling Dog’s post here is extraordinarily good.
Before you publish your own Safer Saws post, you would be wise to read both this post and your beloved professor’s feedback.

  1. Manufacturers: “the mechanism for stopping the blade is much different between the two saws” This is an effort at claiming that the safety devices on the saws are different. This is an Analogy claim, as it claims that only the mechanism for stopping the blade is different and nothing else. Although the point of Bosch’s version is to not destroy the blade the technology is exactly the same and definitely violates the patent as the means of stopping the saw is the byproduct of the sensor that tells the mechanism to stop.
  2. Customers: In a quick video demo we see, without any words, a factual claim that shows that this product works undeniably and in one of the worst case scenarios you will get a scratch that barely bleeds. The customer can easily see this video and say to themselves as an active user that this is the safest and best invention on the market for this product and is well worth the money and may even make it easier for others to explore using the tool with no prior experience.
  3. Industry Spokespeople:  “a fan of your fingers” is an evaluative claim that performs the simple task of getting you to say “yes I do happen to be a fan of keeping them,” and so you now feel that if you’re in the market (or maybe just want the benefit of not losing a finger) for a SawStop saw. This implies that other saws will lead to you losing your fingers if you don’t own this version of the product.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates: “The closest parallel we can find to a story like this is that of a seatbelt” This is an evaluative claim that aims to inform the reader that in terms of saw blades this is the safest you can get for right now. The only evidence is the continued lack of injury using the SawStop over other table saws/blades and the immediate violation of a patent when trying to replicate the idea of the saw stop by Bosch.
  5. Injured Plaintiffs: “Saws Cut Off 4,000 Fingers a Year.” and the industries refuse to create new and more safety measures. This is a numerical claim that provides the reader with the estimated preventable injuries caused by a product that has been made safer by other producers. All of those people probably wish they had a SawStop the day it happened, as long as they value their finger that is.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers: “for more than a decade” this tells the audience the technology to prevent you from losing a finger has existed for a very long time, people having lost a cumulative of a few 10 thousand fingers to a preventable situation as a result of profiting by the big corporations. This is an ethical claim as though the device works near perfect now it’s obvious that it would still take time to develop, but regardless of it the company with the money and means to produce it have refused to do it, costing their consumers their fingers over a $60 replacement blade.
  7. Government Officials: “Power tool industry too powerful to regulate.” Despite the obvious good of not having people cut off their fingers the government cannot alter the large corporation’s production or now hazardous product. This is an evaluative claim because although it is a universal good not to lose a finger the industry is too strong to change their stubborn ideals so hastily. This statement also implies that it is up to the consumer to make the change because if the company won’t change then the people have to stop buying their products and start buying from other companies safe products.
  8. News Reporters: “Bosch has officially entered the limb-saving table saw market.” This is a result of Bosch releasing his own version of the SawStop that was withheld due to a patent conflict with their competitor. This is an evaluative claim as the reporter says that Bosch has officially entered, implying he wasn’t in it or didn’t care about it before. And the limb-saving table saw market isn’t a real market and is simply meant to persuade you into buying the product or boosting your image of Bosch in your head and making you want to buy the product more.
This entry was posted in Safer Saws, SmilingDogTheProfWants. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Safer Saws — SmilingDogTheProfWants

  1. davidbdale says:

    Manufacturers: “the mechanism for stopping the blade is much different between the two saws” This is an effort at claiming that the safety devices on the saws are different. This is an Analogy claim,

    It’s obviously also a Comparative Claim since it compares the mechanism of two saws. Your argument that the Bosch version violates Gass’s patent may not be persuasive, but your evaluation of the claim is good either way.

    Customers: In a quick video demo we see, without any words, a factual claim that shows that this product works undeniably.

    What you say about the claim identifies it as both a proposal claim and an evaluative claim as well, but I’m not much interested in how many ways there are to categorize claims. Everything you say about the claim is sound.

    Industry Spokespeople: “a fan of your fingers” is an evaluative claim.

    I love that you’ve isolated this bit of lovely rhetoric as a claim.

    Consumer Safety Advocates: “The closest parallel we can find to a story like this is that of a seatbelt”

    Obviously a “close parallel” is an analogy, but again, classifying claims by name is not as important as analyzing the arguments. I do wonder though, if a rival “passive restraint” company came up with a seat “harness”!, would that huge difference be enough to skirt patent law?

    Injured Plaintiffs: “Saws Cut Off 4,000 Fingers a Year.” and the industries refuse to create new and more safety measures.

    Yeah. The fingerless must surely regret at their leisure.

    Personal Injury Lawyers: “for more than a decade” this tells the audience the technology to prevent you from losing a finger has existed for a very long time.

    What I like most in your answer here is: “costing their consumers their fingers over a $60 replacement blade”! That’s some very fine rhetoric there.

    Government Officials: “Power tool industry too powerful to regulate.”

    Beautifully described.

    News Reporters: “Bosch has officially entered the limb-saving table saw market.”

    You’re very good at this, Smiling Dog.

    On the whole, yours is a better example of the best way to approach this assignment than even Hazelnutlatte’s version that I posted as a model, Smiling Dog. You have found perfect little nugget-sized claims that encapsulate entire points of view of the various constituents. You understand what the authors mean by their claims, and you analyze them accurately and succinctly.

    Bravo all around. Your classmates would be well advised to emulate what you’ve done here.

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