The real controversy comes in that legislation like this would set a precedent that would mandate any technology that increases the safety of a dangerous power tool.
The writer from Pro Tool Reviews is summarizing the use of SawStop and all the current thoughts surrounding it. The quote above is an example of an evaluative claim, since the writer is suggesting that this new regulation for power saws would be used as an example to other types of technology that can be updated to be safer. This claim is pretty accurate, and he continues to explain how this legislation would affect insurance rates and bring up lots of legal issues with other industries. He supports his claim logically by giving practical reasons as to why this would spark so much controversy. I do not disagree with his claim, I think the writer makes very strong points about insurance, lawsuits, and the possibility that quality could be sacrificed in order to lower the price of SawStop technology.
SawStop’s President, Dr. Stephen Glass applauded the decision, saying “When Bosch chose to introduce the Reaxx saw in disregard of our patents, they left us with no alternative but to take action in court.”
In an article produced by the site Construction Junkie, they discuss how Bosch created his own saw called the Reaxx after Dr. Stephen Glass introduced him to it. Glass had decided to sue Bosch, then the United State’s ITC ruled in favor of Glass and the SawStop, and now Bosch is no longer allowed to distribute and sell the Reaxx. When Glass states that his company was left with no other choice but to sue based on the fact that Bosch neglected the patents, he is making a causal claim. He is suggesting that Bosch caused the suing to occur. I would say that this claim is pretty persuasive and logical. Glass is logical in his reasoning, and I think most readers would agree that if there were patents on the technology, then Bosch should have expected to be sued. I also agree with his claim. If I worked really hard on a new type of technology that would keep people safer, I would be upset if someone tried to copy my work and sell it for a profit.
Always an excuse for why they can’t do something that will prevent injury or save lives; it almost always comes down to putting profits before the safety of their customers.
In the article published by the National Consumers League, Executive Director Sally Greenberg talks about how groups who resist the safety technology argue that there are many reasons as to why it shouldn’t become mandatory. The statement Greenberg makes is a bold ethical claim that insinuates that these companies do not care about their consumers, which puts them in a pretty bad light. I think this claim would be more effective if she went into more detail about what these industry groups said, and explained how the profits would be affected. But I do believe this claim could be very persuasive to some readers, especially those with a more empathetic mindset. I do not agree with this claim because I tend to favor logos over ethos, and I think that this is not a fair claim against the industry leaders.
Not long before, two of his employees had been maimed within a few weeks of each other. Wheeler felt awful about the injuries, the loss of two good workers, the $95,000 in medical bills, the doubling of his workers compensation rates. Watching SawStop in action, Wheeler thought: If only this had come along sooner.
A wood-shop operator had just witnessed the SawStop technology, and was thinking about how useful this product would be in his line of work. This is a categorical claim that depicts what happens when a worker suffers a saw injury. Everytime this happens to one of his employees, he has to lose workers, and pay outrageously large expenses to both the hospital and to his workers. This is a persuasive claim because it puts an emphasis on how much the workers have to go through when an accident happens on the job. Not only do the employees potentially lose a finger, but the employer must handle all of the expenses and responsibility of the accident. It highlights that it is not just the person involved in the accident who struggles when something like this happens.
“The damage that was done to my hand, it’s something that stays with you for the rest of your life,” he said. “I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.”
Floor installer Carlos Osorio was working with a Ryobi saw at his job and cut his fingers almost completely off. He goes on to sue Ryobi, and makes an ethical claim about the lack of compassion saw companies seem to have for their consumers. In this case, I think this claim is effective since Osorio’s story is pretty gruesome and it makes sense to readers that losing movement in the hand is something that is extremely difficult to deal with. His story also shows how little the companies seem to care, and that if it wasn’t for the invention of SawStop technology, he never would have been able to win a lawsuit against Ryobi.
People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries, multiple surgeries, and medical bills they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.
Table saw injury lawyers help thousands of people who have suffered from a table saw injury, and on their website, they explain how they are able to help. This is a categorical claim that lists all the problems that come after being injured by a tablesaw. The most alarming of these issues is the fact that these workers and their families have gone through so much and are still expected to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills even though they are unable to work. This claim does not even include all of the other bills people are expected to pay while they cannot work. This claim demonstrates that physical injury is actually not the only bad thing to come out of these table saws, and uses ethos to make the readers empathize with the workers.
At the same time, table-saw related injuries cost society billions every year. 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.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is using an evaluative numerical claim in this statement. By stating the amount of money that would be saved, they are demonstrating how useful SawStop could be in preventing physical injuries, which would inevitably bring down the amount of money that is lost to medical bills and other financial responsibilities. Since they are only making a prediction those numbers could be way off, but the CPSC has the resources to give accurate estimates. This claim could persuade readers since CPSC is an official part of the government and many people trust what the government says. This claim could also convince readers that SawStops should be mandatory since the numbers show that it would save people thousands of dollars.
I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year. This inventor, a guy named Steve Gass, had actually figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents. Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.
A reporter from NPR states a few factual claims in this quote. It is an undeniable fact that thousands of people are injured by table saw every year, and it is a fact that Steve Gass has been able to prove that his invention works. These are strong claims because they cannot be refuted, no matter what the power tool industry says. These claims could persuade a reader since they are the truth and if they wanted to do more research, they could find exact numbers of injury by table saw and they could find the examples shown online that prove SawStop technology works.