Counterintuitivity

1.”The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer,” said the Power Tool Institute.

2. The Power Tool Institute is claiming that adding the saw stop technology will increase the price per product for the consumer by between $150-$200 .

3. This claim is called a consequential claim.

4.  The claim from the Power Tool Institute is relevant for anyone planning on buying a product with the safer saw technology. The large increase of cost could be enough to persuade a working man to buy a less safe saw and be more carefull with it, instead of paying extra. The increased cost is a reasonable argument to why the technology should not be implemented, since many working men can not afford to spend the extra cash. A consumers lack of interest in paying more makes the Power Tool Institutes’ claim an effective argument against mandatory saw stop technology.

Edited: Completely changed answers to questions 2, 3, and 4, as well as fixing a few typos

1. In regards to table saws, from a lawsuit filed in Chicago:   “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market,” Ryszard Wec claims in Cook County Court. — Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market
2. There are a multitude of claims in this paragraph.  One claim is that the products on the market are defective because they are unsafe. This also contains a nested claim on the definition of defective (going by the Merriam-Webster definition of “imperfect is form or function,” everything is defective in some way, even the alternatives). Another claim is that the “safer alternatives” referred to are truly more effective at preventing injury. Finally, a claim is made that the defendant and it’s competitors declined to purchase the safer alternatives to protect themselves from being sued for putting defective products in the marketplace.
3. Respectively: categorical, definitional, categorical, consequential
4. There are safer alternatives known to exist, such as Steve Gass’ SawStop, and it is also recorded that he tried to offer Bosch the technology. The claim that the company didn’t purchase the alternatives to protect themselves from the liability of having put products not using these alternatives onto the market has no supporting claims, and thus is not very persuasive.
5. I agree to an extent. While it is important that products have appropriate safeguards, going too far will make those products unfeasible to produce. I’m not sure where SawStop and other saw safety ideas fall on that scale.

Delighted customers claim:

“Owners of commercial woodworking shops who have embraced the technology are more than willing to pay a premium for saws that reduce injuries for many reasons. Injuries are negative in themselves; they cause downtime; they cause increases in worker compensation insurance premiums; they harm the shop’s reputation; they force shops to rehire and retrain replacement workers.”

The customers are satisfied with the new stop technology because injuries cause the shops downtime, hurts their reputation, and forces them to rehire and retrain replacement workers.

The claim being made is a consequential claim.

The claim that is made talks alot about the negativities of injuries in the woodshop workplace. It explains how injuries hurts the business along with the employees being hurt by the saws. It’s persuasive enough to let you know how bad injuries are to a company and that they need a solution, but should talk more about the saw along with it and how it has helped with reducing the injuries. We understand that the injuries are bad from this claim, but it doesn’t tell you how the saw stopping mechanism has changed this. It just seems like they assume your suppose to know it has changed all these negatives for the better. It basically describes all the problems that the safe saw would help a company out with though to create a better business for the workshops.

1.

“By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market,’ Ryszard Wec claims in Cook County Court.”- Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market

2. Ryszard Wec claims that because Bosh Tool is trying to keep up the pricing of its competitors, they have failed to alter their products with the latest safety mechanisms. The company has failed to keep their products “state of the art” because the cost of their saws would potentially rise, creating a possible decline in sales if they were to add safety devices.

3. It is an evaluation claim.

4. Although there is no specific evidence within the quote stating that Bosh Tool is negating to use safety tools in their saws based on economic issues, it is an evaluation claim because it clearly weighs the costs and benefits of establishing the safety devices. The costs: people such as Ryszard Wec will sue and the competition will instate these devices; the benefits: it keeps prices low and in the competition.

1. “The system can tell the difference between your finger and the wood. So when your cutting wood if you accidently run your hand into the blade it will stop it so quickly that you’ll get a little nick instead of taking some fingers off.

2. The exultant inventor claims that he made a safer table saw that could stop thousands of amputations in the United States every year.   

3. This claim is a categorical claim.

4. The Steve Glass the exultant inventor of the table saw uses an electrical sensor to tell when the blade comes in contact with flesh instead of wood. To prove that his invention worked Steve Glass conducted many trail runs of his invention using hot dogs because they have the same salty conductivity as human fresh. However, people had doubts whether the invention would stop for human flesh, so Steve set up a new trail using his own finger. When the table saw’s blade came into contact with his finger the blade disappeared under the table and didn’t draw blood. Steve stated it felt like a “buzz” or a “tickle” after coming into contact with the blade.

1. The constituent that I am quoting is a satisfied customer of the SawStop table saw. Larry Okrend of HANDY Magazine has confidence in the effectiveness of the SawStop. He says, “I believe every commercial job site and institutional shop should be equipped with this type of saw. The greatly reduced risk of injury (and the associated medical costs) more than justifies the saw’s higher price.”

2. Although the quote is fairly straight forward, Larry Okrend is proposing that all shops using table saws should invest in the SawStop table saw, because it is safe and ultimately saves appendages and money in the long run by eliminating medical bills.

3. The type of claim Okrend is making is a Proposal Claim.

4. Obviously the sound of a saw that WILL NOT cut off your fingers is a very enticing one. With that being said, this quote I found comes from a popular magazine for the every day handyman, and does not do an effective job explaining why everyone should buy this saw. Simply saying the saw is safe, while is an attention grabber, does not explain why. The author, Larry Okrend, should have explained how the safety mechanism works, as a way to show its ability. Furthermore, later in the article, I feel Okrend takes away from his claim when talking about a government mandate of the product. He says that government mandate should not occur, because too many other power tools create injury. I agree that a government mandate is unnecessary; however, I disagree with his reasoning. It appears as though he is meaning to say that the number of table saw injuries is negligible to injuries caused by other power tools. If he truly backed the product, it would make sense that he would want every table saw to have this safety device, even though other power tools are still dangerous. With these faults, the initial claim lacks the elements (accuracy, quality, reasonableness, and persuasiveness) needed to make people act.

5. I ultimately agree with the initial proposal claim that this saw should be purchased by those using table saws. Unfortunately, I disagree with how Okrend presents this claim. Explaining the saw’s safety capabilities, and not writing his opinion on a government mandate, would have made this a much better claim.