Safer Saws-rowanstudent24

  1. Manufacturers: “We have defended our innovation, our hard work, and our investments in developing SawStop technology.” This was said by SawStop’s President, Dr. Stephen Gass. This is a categorical claim because Gass is saying that they have defended 3 things while developing their technology. Those three things all fall under the category of what they defended.
  2. 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 would be a comparitive claim because it’s comparing normal table saws to the SaferSaw’s Saw. It also has the persuasive aspects within the claim as well.
  3. Industry Spokespeople: “The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.” This is an evaluative claim because this can be arguable. Many people could have different opinions on whether this is bad for business or not. This claim gets the readers attention because it’s like the final say in the article and what the author’s opinion really is.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates: “10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.” This is a factual claim because they are claiming how many people get hurt from saws every day. The second part of it seems like a moral claim because they’re claiming that it’s not right to not include this technology in saws and that it needs to change.
  5. Injured Plaintiffs: “Since it started making table saws in in 2004, SawStop has recorded 2,000 ‘finger saves’—customer reports of accidents likely to have caused disfiguring injuries with conventional saws, but that resulted in minor cuts or a few stitches at most.” This can be seen as a factual claim because it states the amount of figer saves SawStop has recorded in 2004.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers: “Before the invention of the SawStop technology, power-tool makers could argue that table saws were just an inherently dangerous product, and customers accepted the risk when they chose to buy and operate them.” This is an evaluative claim because it’s arguable. The consumers are accepting the risk, however if the SafeSaw technology exists the consumers could lean more towards that than a regular table saw.
  7. Government Officials: “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.” This is a recommendation claim because they are trying to convince the public because the technology makes table saws a lot safer and will reduce medical bills which helps save money.
  8. News Reporters: “In one case, a teacher took a student to the ER after a finger-contact activation, and they came back to find that another student had caused a second activation.” This is a casual claim because it’s showing the consequence of using the saw improperly. It resulted in a student getting hurt and having to go to the ER.
This entry was posted in rowanstudent24, 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