Safer Saws- runnerd4

Happy Customers:”Seymour beaming in triumph as he displays his thumb, which looks like it has a paper cut. ” The customer was extremely pleased with the results when he accidentally touched the blade of the saw. He was relatively unscathed, especially compared to what the results would have been without the safer saws contraption. This is an evaluative claim. This claim evaluated the safer saw machine as being very effective. This claim is very effective because it provides proof that safer saws do work to protect the people who use saws. Readers or possible buyers can be persuaded into buying the product with the evidence provided.

Fed up Lawyers: “For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.” This specific group of lawyers is fed up with the fact that even though there is something out there that could prevent most of the table saw injuries, the manufacturers refuse to bring it into their products. The lawyers view the manufacturers as selfish, as all they care about is keeping the cost of production down, not keeping consumers safe. The lawyers used a moral claim. They are more or less saying that the people deserve to be protected by these companies and that the manufacturers are forgetting all about their ethical and moral judgment just to make more money. This is a very effective claim. The claim appeals to the emotions (pathos) of the reader and gets them thinking about how wrong it is that the manufacturers are not protecting the consumers.

Worried Manufacturers: “They say the mandate could double the cost of entry-level table saws and destroy jobs in the power-tool industry.” Manufacturers are worried about the effects a possible government mandate would have on the power tool industry. They say it will raise costs and cut jobs. This is a causal claim. The mandate would cause the price hikes and lost jobs. This is pretty effective because most businesses like to keep their costs down and no one wants to lose their job. However, it is important to weigh the options here. Are we more concerned about safety or saving money? You have to think “what price would you put on your finger?”

Injured Workers: “The damage that was done to my hand, it’s something that stays with you for the rest of your life.” Osorio had his who life completely changed from an accident with a saw. He has very limited mobility in his left hand after losing and reattaching four fingers. This is a causal claim. This claim is discussing the consequences of getting injured by the saw. He is claiming that if you are injured by a saw, the damage will stick around for your whole life, especially due to the fact that the damage is usually very serious. This claim is very effective. Hearing the consequences of something generally deters someone from doing the activity, especially when it involves possibly getting your fingers chopped off, or worse. If Osorio had a SawStop, he would not have to deal with this injury for the rest of his life.

Inventor POV: “So when you’re cutting wood, if you accidentally run your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you’ll just get a little nick instead of maybe taking some fingers off.” The damage done when there is a saw stop is substantially less than the damage done without a saw stop. This is a factual claim. The technology of the sawstop makes it so the saw will stop very quickly when it comes in contact with the finger, avoiding injury. This claim is pretty indisputable. Through demonstrations, Gass has proven that this saw stop works and protects saw users. This proof can persuade possible buyers to go through with purchasing a saw with this technology.

Journalist Opinion: “In other words, let consumers decide.” This is a Recommendation claim. Chris Arnold believes that the SawStop technology is very effective, but the consumers should be the ones to decide in the end if they want to pay extra for a saw with the technology. He recommends that there should not be a government mandate, but consumers should be able to decide for themselves. He brings into consideration that many people do not want to pay extra for the technology. This is a very effective. He takes into consideration both sides and leaves the decision in the end to the consumers. It helps the reader understand more about how consumers may not even have the extra money to spend on the technology, but they still need the tool. The consumers are going to have to choose between their safety or the extra couple hundred dollars saved.

Consumer Safety Advocate POV: “10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.” The National Consumer League is worried about the safety of those who use power saws. This is a mix of a quantitative evaluative claim and a moral claim. The NCL executive director claims that 10 amputations a day is too many injuries. I am assuming that she would not think that 9 injuries a day is much better and would prefer there to be zero injuries per day. This is also a moral claim attacking those who are working against the mandates. The injuries could be avoided with the new technology, but the power saw industry is more worried about making a profit than protecting the consumers. This is a very effective claim. The executive director makes the reader feel passionate about the topic. The claim is accurate because the mandates are in fact waiting and these injuries can be avoided. She provides the evidence needed to support her claims.

Frazzled Government Officials: “The power tool industry is too powerful to regulate.” This is an evaluative claim. The claim evaluates the power of the power tool industry. Because the power tool industry is so powerful, it cannot be regulated. This is a very accurate claim. After many failed attempts to pass a mandate forcing power tool companies to add in safety technology like sawstop, some government officials have lost hope. The power tool industry pushed back strong every time. This is a quality and reasonable claim because it comes from the past experiences trying to regulate the industry.

This entry was posted in runnerd4, Safer Saws. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Safer Saws- runnerd4

  1. davidbdale says:

    I love your work here, Runner. You’ve chosen excellent examples of claims from your representative constituencies, analyzed them well, and classified them reasonably. Keep in mind there are always various ways to categorize claims depending on how they’re phrased. A Definitional claim that makes the assertion that X is a member of the category Y, that almost always causes Z, is both Definitional and Causal; it could be abbreviated X causes Z.

    Just so, what you call a Factual claim:

    “So when you’re cutting wood, if you accidentally run your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you’ll just get a little nick instead of maybe taking some fingers off.”

    Does state a fact, but is also Causal (hand into blade causes nick) (hand into blade does not cause lost fingers) and Comparative (causes far less injury than the alternative).

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