“…the trade group that is resisting adopting safety technology by arguing that it’s too expensive, that it’s unreliable, and that consumers don’t want it”
This is an ethical/moral and an evaluative claim because the speaker is assuming based on the cost of the products with these enhancements that they will not buy it. Personally, I would counter this as a load of crap and that if you as a company really wanted to, you could release an ultra safe version and a regular version and allow the consumers to decide which one they prefer to buy instead of only giving them one option. Simple solution.
The claim assumed by the customers in this article suggest that the saws are unsafe for usage and the manufacturers need to recall and release a safe version of the product.
This is a casual and factual claim as the customers are assuming based off of the track record of these saws and and common sense and logic that if a company makes a product safer, it can cut down on injuries. I think this makes almost too much sense for these giant corporations and manufacturers and is irrefutable, but the fact that they keep denying this and constantly make excuses means the day is never going to come where they do things a different way.
“…adopting safety technology is too expensive, unreliable, and that consumers don’t want it.”
This is an evaluative claim as the industry is basing a decision off of the characteristics of an item and a situation involving that item. Again, this is ridiculous and the industry should just release a safer version of the saw along with the regular version and allow the consumer to choose for themselves which saw they want to help ease the headache this situation has caused.
Consumer Safety Advocates
“Ten people everyday – according to the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents.”
This is a Quantitative and Factual claim as there is a specific number or measurement listed and it is a factual statistic collected by an organization. I found this to be an interesting, but unsurprising stat as I have had many family members injure themselves with power saws in the past. I do agree that something needs to be figured out on how to make them safer to use.
The claim the article suggests on behalf of the injured plaintiffs is that the saw manufacturers need to find a way to make these tools safer for human usage.
This is a casual claim is the claim is being based off of personal experiences rather than a proven statistic. I do believe that these tools need to be safer and I do feel that personal experiences are very good evidence and proof that can be shown to be persuasive to the big corporations that their product is unsafe for usage and is a good way to prove that.
“As NCL told USA Today, if you have a pattern of injury, a safety technology that can address it, and it’s affordable, you should move toward a mandatory safety standard so that all parts of the industry comply. That also creates a level playing field so that no one manufacturer can get by on the cheap and NOT install the technology.”
This is an evaluative claim as the reporters of the NCL make a claim based on the presented situation that if there is a solution, any and every step should be taken to achieve that solution. This claim to me reeks of common sense that is very relatable to most people in their own personal situations which is an accurate persuasive technique which will ultimately be successful.
Personal Injury Lawyers
“… you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation.”
This is a recommendation/proposal claim as the firm is recommending that the injured users contact them immediately for a consultation. I think it is a good thing firms are being proactive trying to help these injured people, however, we all know this is a money grab as much as anything else these firms or corporations put out there.
“… the US International Trade Commission ruled un favor of SawStop…”
This is a factual claim as it is being claimed based off of a factual report that the UTC ruled in favor of SawStop over REAXX. I feel this is a bit of a tacky subject as is almost all patent court cases because in the case of SawStop and REAXX, they are both defending an innovation that is under fire for bodily harm to its users to be theirs which to me seems counterintuitive to actually WANT that negative press and publicity.