Task for WED MAR 13

Posted on March 6, 2019 by davidbdale

You’ll find links to the background material
for this task on the Agenda for WED MAR 06.

Based on sample Openings provided in the Lecture titled “How to Open Lecture/Demo,” write two different opening paragraphs for your Research Position Paper, based on your current best understanding of your topic.

  • Each Opening must contain a thesis sentence that clearly and boldly proclaims the claim you promise readers you will prove.
  • Do not use the same thesis for more than one Opening.

EXERCISE SPECIFICS

  • Open a new post titled: Open Strong—Username
  • Post to the Open Strong Take Home category and to your own Username
  • Write an opening paragraph for your Research Position Paper (in progress).
  • Craft a first sentence that DOES NOT LOSE the argument.
  • A good first sentence:
    • Makes strong, perhaps paradoxical claims.
    • Sums up a very strong argument the essay will make.
    • Is itself an argument.
    • Makes a challenge to the reader.
    • Is memorable.
    • Can be debated, demonstrated, illustrated.
    • Is a good example of itself.
  • The other 3 or so sentences should achieve as many of the “First Sentence” goals as possible . . . each!
  • Repeat to create a second First Paragraph with a different thesis.
  • You have until I see you WED MAR 13 to post a good first draft.
Posted in davidbdale, Open Strong Take Home | Leave a comment

Safer Straws- doorknob9

Posted on March 6, 2019 by doorknob9
  1. Manufacturers

“Steve Gass claims that he has been driving a force between himself and other businesses willing to buy products from inventors. He tried to establish other table saw makes to license his technology.” This is a recommendation claim because Steve Gass is stating that his product is safer than any other saw products, and gives us the differences in them. His product uses a break that stops the saw immediately whereas his competitor “the Reax”, detects human flesh with an electrical charge.

2. Customers

“I haven’t had an injury in 10 years.” This is a numerical claim because he directly uses the number 10. This also lets us know the customer has positive feedback for the product because they’re letting us know they haven’t had an injury or incident in those 10 years of ownership.

3. Industry Spokespeople

“Energy has to go somewhere when it stops.” This is an informative claim because they are telling us that, very literally, the energy goes somewhere when it stops. It’s saying when the saw collapses, it’s spinning so fast that a spark shoots out and the break stops the saw, but this energy from the saw must go somewhere.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

“I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.” This is a categorical claim because it is categorizing the injuries as “particularly gruesome,” or at least in many cases they are. This isn’t focused on one specific brand of table saws, however. It is referring to the broad use of table saws.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

“Manufacturures are facing lawsuits because they could have had technology like SawStop or similar mechanisms.” This is an evaluative claim because it is informing us that people who faced injuries while using table saws are suing the manufacturers due to the fact that they could have used saw-stopping technology that could have prevented their injuries.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

“You should contact our lawyers immediately.” This is a recommendation claim because this personal injury lawyer is telling those who have faced injuries while using a table saw should hire, or at least contact them to form a lawsuit against the saws manufacturers.

7. Government Officials

“Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008.” This is a numerical claim because they government official is using direct numbers to prove the amount of injuries in relation to blade contact incidents. It does not do a lot of good for the manufacturers considering the government is coming directly for them and their product within this claim.

8. News Reporters

“This is a man who has faith in his creation.” This is an evaluative claim because it is letting us know what the person who created the product has to say about it, and they seem to have high regard for their work.

Posted in doorknob, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saws- NYAJ32

Posted on March 6, 2019 by nyaj32

Manufacturers- “No one manufacturer can get by on the cheap and NOT install the technology.” This is a comparative claim because it compares the price to install the machinery to people trying to be good safe and cheap. It is not crazy expensive, plus it is worth it if it can hold up to its expectations.

Customers- “ Low percentage of tabke saw injuries are from the blade. They are mostly from kickback.” This is an argumentative claim. They customers are arguing that the product is not in high demand because it will not prevent the majority of table saw injuries.

Industry Spokemen- “I couldn’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to put this on the saws that they were offering to people.” This is an opinionative claim. This is because not everyone would feel the same way the speaker does. He is not stating facts. He is blaintly stating how he specifically feels.

Customer Safety Advocates- “Approximately 67,000 people suffered blade injuries in 2007 and 2008.” This is a factual claim. This claim uses data that can not be argued against. They are trying to prove that this safer saw will prevent around 67,000 injuring in two years if everyone were to switch over from a regular saw.

Injured Plantiffs- “Manufacturures are facing lawsuits because they could have had technology like SawStop or similar mechanisms.” This is an evaluative claim. Because there is the option to get SawStop, some businesses will get lawsuits for tabke saw related injuries.

Personal Injury Lawyers- “The Schmidt Firm is currently accepting tabke saw induced injuries in all 50 states.” This is a persuasive claim. The firm that wrote the article gave all the information needed and then summed it up by offering their assistance in all 50 states in America. They are trying to get more clients.

Government Officials- “This agency is firmly exploring how to prevent these kinds of injuries from continuing to occur.” This is a factual claim. Yet, they may not be exploring as much as we think. A lot of times, I they will spend minimal amount of time on something so that they can say they did it.

News Reporters- “Gass didn’t just invent a safer saw table, he has been driving behind its adoption over the past two decades.” This is an evaluative claim. The reporter evaluated her information and observed and figured out that Gass had been pushing for a change for a very long time.

 

 

 

Posted in NYAJ32, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saws–Daphneblake

Posted on March 6, 2019 by daphneblake25
  1. Manufacturers: ‘Well it’s a lot like a touch lamp.” Gass is explaining how the system for his sawstops picking up on human skin is similar to that same process of a touch lamp. This is a categorical claim because Gass is putting his saw invention in the same category as touch lamps. This claim makes sense because Gass is trying to give potential buyers another perspective to compare it to.
  2. Customers: “I haven’t had an injury in 10 years.” This customer is assessing how well the sawstop works because he has not experienced an injury in the 10 years he’s had it. This is a numerical claim because of the “10 years” and it’s a reasonable review because someone looking into buying one of these want customer satisfaction that it actually works.
  3. Industry spokesperson: “I wish they would have had these earlier, I would have brought two!” This is a causal claim basically saying because of one thing, one thing would have happened. This is a reasonable observation since the price of the saw is cheap compared to the money saved from saw injuries being prevented
  4. ‘You should move toward a mandatory safety standard.” This is laying out the do’s an don’ts of trying to stay okay in the saw world. This is a proposal claim that’s reasonable because a new invention promoting safety should be safe.
  5. Injured Plaintiff: “Every year, thousands of people are hurt using table saws. This is a numerical claim and I agree with it.
  6. Personal Injury lawyers: “we consider a referral from another law firm, this is a proposal claim and makes sense.
  7. Government Officials: “In the past 9 weeks are so”. A numerical claim was made and it’s a very reasonable one.
  8. News Reporters: “New innovative technology”. I would consider this a definition claim since they’re defining it as innovative. This is reasonable because the technology has literally never been seen before so it has to be very unique.
Posted in daphneblake, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saws-rowanstudent

Posted on March 6, 2019 by rowanstudent2

1. Manufacturers: “The SawStop Contractor Saw has over 170 unique setups” is a quantitative and numerical claim. This brings the attention to the customers interested in buying the saw. It persuades them by the many setups the saw has. You would expect a saw to have 5 or 6 setups, but not the SawStop Contractor Saw. It has OVER 170 setups. Not only are they plain setups, they are unique meaning it can be setup in ways you least expect, which is convincing.

2. Interested Customer: “If only this had come along sooner” is a causal claim. The guy who is talking says that if he had known about SawStop, then the prevention of his employees injuries would have been very likely. Since it has the word “if” it means it requires an essential condition before the situation occurs.

3. Industry Website: “our saws have saved thousands of fingers” is a comparative claim. It implies that saws from other companies haven’t saved that many fingers. It makes the consumer not to even think about buying any other saw but the SawStop one because this saw will prevent them from getting their finger chopped off, according to their website.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates: “Each year, more than 67,000 workers and do-it-yourselfers are injured by table saws” is a factual and numerical claim. The Consumer Product Safety Commission states this overwhelming fact about how many workers are injured due to table saws. It states factual information and provides a number to persuade its consumers of the many injuries other table saws have caused that don’t have the SawStop technology.

5. Injured Plaintiffs: “If this safety mechanism had…” is a causal claim. This is a causal claim because it includes the word “if” which means there should have been a precondition to prevent future injuries. It persuades consumers by showing that if SawStop was used instead of the other company’s saw, then their injury could have been prevented.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers: “you should contact our lawyers immediately” is a recommendation claim. These table saw injury lawyers are telling the people who have been injured by a table saw to get in touch with these lawyers so that they can file a lawsuit against the table saw’s company. This claim communicates with their clients in a way that makes them want to use their lawyers right away because injured people are always going to want “justice” for what made them injured in the first place.

7. Government Officials: “Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology” is an evaluative claim and maybe an ethical claim. It can be argued that the table-saw makers will not adopt the safer technology because of certain precautions and money issues. These companies don’t have to have these safer regulations, but they can be forced to have them if they want to still exist. It places a judgement on the other companies saying that their saw technology isn’t safe enough.

8. News Reporters: “Gass’ little upstart company, has sold tens of thousands” is a factual claim. There is no doubt that this company has started out really small. Steve Gass had many haters from the very start, but he proved to those who didn’t believe in him by selling many SawStop inventions. Gass was able to prove to them that his invention was needed in this world is what the reporter is trying to persuade his readers about SawStop.

Posted in rowanstudent, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saws- nj908

Posted on March 6, 2019 by nj908

Manufacture: “less than a thousandth of a second” is a qualitative claim because  the manufacturer is saying that the blade will stop in that amount of time when it senses your finger and the time makes it qualitative.

Customer: since Gass never was given permission to distribute his invention in stores it was compared the the company/product “reaxx” where that product had the same gist but would not destroy itself in the act of saving somebody’s hand

Industry Spokespeople: “Energy has to go somewhere when it stops.” is an informative claim saying that the saw when collapsing is spinning at such a speed that when the spark fires and launches the safety mechanism into the blade the energy from the blade spinning has to go somewhere and it is said that energy is like a car the safety mechanism is what disperses the energy like the car frame crumpling  

Injured Plaintiffs: “I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.” this is a proposal claim since the plaintiffs are proposing to the manufacturers that they should care less about the cost but instead the people using the machinery

Personal Injury Lawyers: “a little nervous.” this statement can be used because this shows hesitance in Gass using his invention instead of being confident in his work which says without telling that he is not trusting his invention 100 percent will work every time.

Steve Gass: “I don’t like doing it.” along with him saying “a little nervous” when asked how he was feeling about testing his invention he also made a proposal claim proposing that he does not like testing his invention which puts little faith into anyone looking to distribute his product.

News Reporters: “This is a man who has faith in his creation.” The proposal claim that Gass has faith in his creation is pushed here when the reporter backs him up on his invention when other actions say differently.

Posted in nj908, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saws-Chavanillo

Posted on March 5, 2019 by chavanillo

https://www.constructionjunkie.com/blog/2017/4/3/bosch-ordered-to-stop-sales-of-reaxx-flesh-detecting-table-saw

Manufactures

The company Sawstop was the first company to market a table saw that detects flesh and stops the blade. This kind of new Technology could save millions of people fingers and hands. In the other hand this company had to do a lawsuit against Bosch because he wanted to order to stop sales of Reaxx jobsite table saw because he copyright their new table saw. Sawstop company new product the who table saw will destroy it self in the process if your fingers get close to it, while In the Reaxx table saw the blade go under a whole called housing below the table saw.

Costumers

Actually, even though it was restricted for Bosch to sell in marker his Reaxx saw the orders that were already sent to buyers before the ITC decision started to getting involved they actually went through and let him proceed in those purchases. Meanwhile now customers will have less chance on deciding which one could’ve worked better, but I believe that if it was for he customers in believe they would’ve on decided to buy the Reaxx saw instead of the Sawstop saw machine because Sawstop company product destroys itself. While the Reaxx saw doesn’t. So for the Reaxx saw you get both advantages, but in Sawstop saw you only will get one.

Industry Spokes People

They agree with the company Sawstop because they were the original creators of this new technical table saw and copyrighting without even a license is violating basically stealing the product. This is the President of Sawstop company (Dr. Stephen Glass). He totally agreed on law suiting Bosch because of his patent infringement.

Consumer safety Advocates

The company Sawstop when they law suited Bosch the US International Trade Commission (ITC) got involved as the protectors of invasions in this case the table saw. They were the ones that really finish the case and gave all the strong advantages to the company because in everyone eye Bosch copyrighted and violated security rules.

Injured Plaintiffs

When it comes to the safety of saws, specially with the new technical product. There might be a concerned with it because is it a chance willing to take. Is really a great invasion to reduce the amount of injuries, but the question is, if it would stand long enough.

Personal Injury Lawyers

This product is a big chance to reduce the amount of injuries. Actually it will cause injury lowers to get less passions. this is why this product is dangerous for this kind of lawyers because it will reduce amount of injuries so less money. This actually won’t be good business for this specific lawyers. You also had to have in mind that this kind of business will do anything to get what they want. At the end of the day they will go always to he side that will  benefit them. Also, you have to have a consideration that injury lawyers also could help with this product if you think about it. Imagining the machine gets out of control. You could lawsuit.

Government Officials

They totally agree with the SawStop company. Even thought they decide that Bosch can’t sale ans market the Reaxx saw, he still could “sell and market the units they already have.” Meaning that purchases due before the ITC decision was made will all go through successfully.  The government officials are actually  not 100% sure about this new technical table saw machine. At the end of the day there are always negative sides in each product made all over the world because nothing is perfect, because we humans are not perfect.

News Reporters

In this kind of  case news reporters are really trying to tel us that there has been a competition or you could say a debate between the Sawstop company and Bosch Reaxx saw. They also might be talking about the sadness the Bosch felt when the final decision was made. Bosch will try his best to continue hos service and provide us with new repair products that will help the Reaxx saw replacement. A way he could use it without being copyrighted or law suited again.  Remember everything because he didn’t had no secure license.

I believe that the Sawstop had all the right to lawsuit Bosch, but they shouldn’t of taking his product out of market and sell because at the end of the day the company could’ve done something with it or even negotiate.

Posted in Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saw-Jets1313

Posted on March 5, 2019 by jets1313
  1. The manufacturers of this product are Steve Gass, Bosch. Customers of this product would be people that work in factories, or in a wood-cutting business. The industry spokesperson seemed to be Steve Gass as him and the narrator did most of the talking about the product.
  2. This machine will improve wood workers experience because it contains a safety feature that stops the blade from cutting wood if it senses a persons finger, allowing the saw to be much safer for the people that use them.
  3. the claim being made is that if your finger is wet and salty (which it naturally is) then the saw will stop running to protect your finger from being cut.
  4. the claim made about this saw is extremely accurate as it is tested by the manufacturer, however, it only works if your finger is wet, so if you aren’s sweating or drenched in water this might not be helpful. The quality of this machine doesnt seem to be great because although it stops when it sensed a wet salty finger, it breaks the entire machine if it does need to stop. This machine claims to be reasonable and efficient however, economically, this doesnt seem like the best design because repurchasing the machine would probably be very expensive. The claim that the machine is safe is good because it is but the video shows the manufacturer dernching his finger in water before going near the saw, this leads the viewer to not be persuaded by the claim because we dont know if it works if your finger isnt wet.
  5. I agree that this saw is safer because it will stop, however, it is not cost efficient because the machine breaks if your finger does get close to the saw. Also, your finger needs to be wet and salty which is not practical. So no, I do not agree with the claim that this machinewill protect your fingers for those reasons.
  6. Quote the constituent
  7. Paraphrase or explain what claim is made if necessary, or simply repeat the quote if not.
  8. Identify what type of claim is being made.
  9. In a few sentences, evaluate the accuracy, quality, reasonableness, and persuasiveness of the claim, and any support that is offered for the claim.
  10. You may also choose to refute the claim, again in a few sentences, if you disagree with it.

 

Posted in jets, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Safer Saws- yourfavoriteanon

Posted on March 5, 2019 by yourfavoriteanon

Manufacturers

  • “Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell”
  • Paraphrase: In the eyes of the opposing manufacturers, safer products don’t sell as regular
  • Evaluation Claim
  • This claim is very bold towards Gass because they are trying to send him a big message. The accuracy could be true because these are manufacturers of companies that would know either or not a product sells. It definitely comes off as arrogant but businesses are sometimes like that.
  • I disagree with this statement but I wouldn’t know what’s sells because I’m not well informed about that type of business.

Customers

  • “To hold Bosch liable for not making a bad business decision that wold cost them lots of money seems a bit unreasonable if not ludicrous.”
  • Paraphrase: Bosch should be held accountable for denying the SawStop just to make their own version
  • Categorical Claim
  • This claim takes a shot at Bosch and Bosch’s copycat product. The accuracy depends on opinion while the persuasion quality shows enthusiasm. “…if not ludicrous” adds emphasis on how much the customers disagrees with Bosch.

Industry Spokespeople

  • “The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could, by now, have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.”
  • Paraphrase: not needed
  • Consequential Claim
  • The safety factor is no doubt reasonable but being bad for business could be a major set back. The set up of the claim helps defend why the SawStop was made but as a whole, questions the legitimacy of the product for business.

Consumer Safety Advocates

  • “I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.”
  • Paraphrase: not needed
  • Categorical Claim
  • I think it’s safe to say this claim is very reasonable. The accuracy can be backed up by statistics of actual injuries from table saws. Although, this claim does not involve evidence.

Injured Plaintiffs

  • “I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.”
  • Paraphrase: Manufactures should worry more about the people’s safety while using the saws rather than cost.
  • Proposal Claim
  • The accuracy of this claim depends on opinion but I’d imagine most would agree. The claim itself doesn’t have to persuade because it makes you think of what is the good choice rather than the bad. It’s reasonable to persuade for the greater good.

Personal Injury Lawyers

  • “Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.”
  • Paraphrase: The manufactures refuse to use new safer technologies
  • Evaluation Claim
  • Evaluating that the manufacturers’ negligence to make proper safety changes to their product is “unfortunate”. I totally agree with claim given it is reasonable that we shouldn’t want people to get hurt. Some people still might not want the changes to the products even after an injury.

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.”
  • Paraphrase: no need
  • Consequential Claim
  • Changing and switching to safer saw design is shown to be reasonable in the claim. The evidence in the claim that supports it is saving money by reducing medical bills and lost work. The claim’s persuasion is the incentive of saving money.

News Reporters

  • “In other words, let consumers decide.”
  • Paraphrase: Letting consumers decide whether or not safety should be implemented would be for their best interest
  • Proposal Claim
  • Letting the consumers decide would be reasonable because the consumers are the one’s who use the products, not the manufacturers. The claim is short but powerful because it is intended for the consumer’s wellbeing. The persuasion is to stop worrying so much on the business aspect and worry about the workers that use it.
Posted in Safer Saws, yourfavoriteanon | Leave a comment

Safer Saws Task- nousernamefound1

Posted on March 5, 2019 by nousernamefound1

S

Manufacturers

“The Bosch tool uses a sensing circuit that’s similar to the one SawStop patented years ago, but not identical.” This is comparing the tool created by Bosch and the SawStop. When the claim maker inserted the word similar the claim turned into an analogy. An analogy is when you’re claiming a similarity of one thing to another.

Delighted Customers

“Anyone who has used a table saw for any period of time is aware.” This is claiming that people who have invested in a table saw for a long period of time are aware of the safety issues that come with them. This demonstrates a casual claim because it’s basically saying because of one thing it makes the next thing true.

Consumer Safety Advocates

“We also know, based on the estimates from staff’s special studies that far more serious injuries are occurring all too often.” This claim is a Comparative Claim. Compares the safety hazard of serious injuries in people that don’t use the saws to the people that actually do use them. Evidence shows that there are more injuries that are occurring more often when using saws. This can also be an Evaluative Claim.

Table Saw Injury Lawyer

“For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries.” This is claiming that the flesh-sensing safety technology will automatically prevent all table saw injuries. This claim falls into the causal claim category. It makes an assumption that the injuries will stop if manufacturers would accept flesh-sensing technology.

Steve Gass

“It’s a lot like a touch lamp.” This is claiming that the touch lamp is similar to the SawStop invention. They both give off signals in your body. This is also an analogy claim. It’s comparing two different objects to give a better understanding of the audience.

Massachusetts Plaintiff

“the absence of the technology constitutes a dangerous design defect.” The plaintiff is using “judgment” to get his/her point across on how dangerous the saws are. The plaintiff is evaluating the quality of the item by inserting his judgment, which is called an Evaluative Claim.

Black&Decker Executive

“If you guys don’t cooperate with us, the industry is going to get together and squish you.” This is saying that if you don’t do what we say then you will face consequences of that action. This has to be a Proposal Claim. The executive is giving Gass an option, but basically, its telling him he must do it because if he doesn’t he will lose.

News Reporter

If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They? This Is using judgment because of the fact that you must experience what the saw can do before you actually judge it. This is an Evaluative Claim or Ethical claim because it makes a claim that if the saws were able to be safe, why are people still getting hurt today.

Posted in nousernamefound, Safer Saws | Leave a comment