Manufacturers- “Safety has historically been one of the Bosch principles.” This was a statement released by the Bosch saw company in light of concerns over not implementing safety saws. This is an evaluative claim because it’s evaluating how central safety is to Bosch’s mission. It makes Bosch seem like a caring and morally upright company since their concern about safety allegedly goes way back. Personally, I might just call it a lie.
Customers- “If you are in the market for a new table saw and are a fan of your fingers and American companies, this is the one for you.” This is the conclusion of a recommendation for the SawStop, saying that you should buy this product if you want to keep your fingers and support American businesses. This is a comparative claim because it compares the SawStop to saws that will not aid you in keeping your fingers or supporting American businesses. That’s perfectly persuasive. Keeping your fingers is a solid reason to buy something. I think the humorous tone of “fan of your fingers” adds to the persuasiveness of it. Everyone wants to keep their fingers, so this recommendation makes it seem silly to not use the SawStop.
Industry Spokespeople- “you can get injured” This is a claim that states danger should be expected when dealing with table saws. Basically, it’s a part of the deal, it always has been, and table saw users know this, so it shouldn’t be an issue. This is a causal claim because it details a cause and effect of table saws. I see how this could persuade some; it’s so matter-of-fact that some people might just nod along. However, I don’t think that essentially saying “it is what it is” is a solid argument against changing the way things are, especially since the technology to change it exists.
Consumer Safety Advocates- “an unacceptable toll” This quote talks about the number of saw-related injuries that result each day and each year. This is an evaluative claim because it is making a judgement about saw-related injuries based on statistics, deeming the number of injuries unacceptable especially since they’re preventable. It’s a perfectly reasonable claim, especially given the fact that the injuries can be prevented so any number of injuries could be considered unacceptable. The phrase “unacceptable toll” is a firm one that can persuade readers into agreement and get them fired up about saw safety.
Injured Plaintiffs- “people who are using the saws” A man injured by a table saw says that people using the saws should be more important than the cost to the manufacturers. This is both a proposal and a moral claim. It’s proposing where manufacturers’ focus should be and it’s taking the moral high ground by putting human beings over money. It’s probably not enough to win over manufacturers, but it will likely earn the sympathy of the everyday reader.
Personal Injury Lawyers- “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws.” This is a statistic that serves as the opening sentence on the website of a saw injury law firm. This is a factual claim because the statistics do show that thousands of people sustain injuries from table saws every year. I’d say it’s pretty persuasive. Most people who read that would probably think that something should be done to prevent those injuries. However, what lawyers are actually trying to do is get clients. By leading with this statistic, it’s instantly clear that the author is knowledgeable about the topic, making people suffering from injuries feel like someone cares about their problem and prompting them to hire a lawyer from this firm.
Government Officials- “the agency would be more likely to investigate the issue if petitioned” This claims that the Consumer Product Safety Commission would be more likely to investigate the regulation of table saws if petitioned. A CPSC engineer said this to the inventor of the SawStop. This is a causal claim because it is talking about a potential cause and effect of petitioning the CPSC/ a prediction of what the CPSC might do if petitioned. It worked, because a petition was created. However, the issue remains unresolved. I think the “more likely” is key here because it indicates doubt. The industry has the CPSC held at a standstill and progress isn’t really being made. The claim was reasonable enough but ultimately untrue.
News Reporters- “Seven years ago” This is a factual claim that starts off the article with the reporter sharing when and how he found out about the SawStop. It’s a clever way to start off the article that doesn’t totally click until you keep reading. The article details how the power tool industry has failed to adopt SawStop technology and make their saws safer. Just from reading the meat of the article, this failure seems a bit ridiculous, but then the opening is remembered- this has been going on for at least seven years. In seven whole years, the industry still hasn’t changed, and the government hasn’t done anything to regulate it either. That is pretty persuasive to me. I think you really start shaking your head at the power tool industry once you realize that they refused to make their tools safer for almost a decade.