Safer Saws- profs22

Manufacturer:

“Bosch’s saw establishes a low-voltage capacitive circuit between the user and a sensing device next to the blade. Flesh coming into contact with the blade shorts the circuit and trips the chemical firing mechanism of a cartridge housed next to the blade.” Bosch demonstrates how the saw works and how it can prevent injuries. This is a factual claim because it provides factual evidence on how the saw works. This claim is reasonable and accurate as it provides true information about the saw. However it is not quite persuasive enough because it does not clearly demonstrate or provide an example.

Customers:

“Data supplied by SawStop concerning the number of table saw units sold and the number of reported blade contact incidences, demonstrates that operators are nearly five times more likely to contact the saw blade of a SawStop saw as opposed to the operator of a conventional table saw.” Because the sawstop is marketed by selling its safety features, customers are less likely to take caution when using it, thus resulting in even more injuries. This is a numerical claim as it gives the likelihood of how you are 5x more likely to be injured with the sawstop. This is a pretty reasonable claim but i don’t completely agree with it. The saw is more safe than a regular saw, its just that the customers are using it wrong. This claim makes the sawstop look bad to readers, when really there is no issue with the product, it is the costomer at fault.

Industry Spokespeople:

“Unmatched: The SawStop Industrial Cabinet Saw is the heaviest, most powerful, and highest quality 10″ cabinet saw available.” This claim is the first thing that the reader sees on the official sawstop website. This is a descriptive claim as it provides details about the product. I do not think that claim is persuasive and is very bad quality for being the first thing that comes up on the website. They should lean towards a more factual claim to provide a more convincing argument to sell their product.

Consumer Safety Advocates:

” A man took an Oscar Meyer wiener and pushed it into the blade of a table saw spinning 4,000 times per minute. As the hot dog touched the whirring saw, the blade came to a dead stop in about three one-thousandths of a second, leaving the dog with only a minor nick.” This demonstration shows the audience how safe their product is. This demonstration is so well known that some even call it the hot dog saw. This is an evaluative claim because the reader can assess the demonstration and determine how safe the saw is. I think this claim is very persuasive and accurate because it provides proof and influences the audience to buy the product.

Plaintiffs:

“The latest SawStop Vs Bosch Reaxx ruling has fallen in favor of SawStop. The end game is stop the import and sale of Reaxx saws and parts. ” In court it was determined that Bosch had to stop the sale of their saws because its competitor sawstop had a patent on their product. This is a factual claim because it is providing details about the outcome of the lawsuit. This claim is reasonable and accurate. I do not think it has any persuasive qualities toward the reader because it is irrelevant to the safety of the saw.

Personal Injury Lawyers:

“Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it. In fact, the world’s largest tool manufacturers rejected it.” This claim is how the injury lawyers approach their argument to defend those injured by table saws. This is a numerical claim as it verifies the number of table saw related injuries. I think this claim is very useful and convincing because it provides evidence of the injuries and the fact that most companies have no adopted the safety technology on their product. Thus resulting in an absurd amount of injuries due to table saws. This convinces the reader to buy the sawstop to prevent injury.

Government Officials:

” federal regulators are considering whether to make Gass’ technology mandatory in the table-saw industry. The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced plans for a new rule in May, and the rules could take effect in the coming months.” The fact that this safety technology is considered being mandatory is very convincing for customers to buy that product as they may be forced to in the future. This is an evaluative claim because the reader can assess what actions government officials are taking which can influence their decision. The law has a big say in this decision because most people tend to look up to those of a higher status and will listen to what they say. In this case the feds plan to make safety technology mandatory which will persuade the reader to buy saws with the safety features.

News Reporters:

“But as court records and testimony have shown, the companies rejected the safety advance for another reason, too: They worried that if a way to prevent severe injuries got traction in the market, they would face liability for accidents with conventional saws.” This news reporter suggesting that the power industry is too powerful to regulate. This is a factual claim as it explains the issues that have occurred in court. I dont think this claim provides too much information that would influence the reader. It is accurate but does not persuade the reader.

This entry was posted in profs22, 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