Causal-Hailthegreat8

Posted on October 20, 2020 by hailthegreat8

Professor, I don’t know if these are good arguments for my casual argument, but here is what I have so far. I might need some help to actually to start writing.

  1. Authoritarian Parents show no love to their children.
  2. Authoritarian Parent hurt their child mentally
  3. Authoritarian Parent-children always succeeds in their field.
  4. Authoritarian Parents have stringent rules that must be followed.
  5. Authoritarian Parents think that obedience is love.
Posted in hailthegreat8 | Leave a comment

Safer Saws – gooferious

Posted on October 20, 2020 by gooferious
  1. Table Saw Injury Lawyer: “Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it” this statement is saying that there is indeed technology out there that can prevent injuries from happening due to table saws but the manufacturers refuse to add this new feature onto newer makes of table saws. I believe this to be a moral claim as moral judgement can be used to persuade others that manufacturers should in fact adopt this new safety method regardless of the additional cost.
  2. Injured Plaintiffs: In the case of Carlos Osorio, the man who now has two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling due to a table saw injury was ultimately compensated for the negligence of the table saw company, One World Technologies. He was given $1.5 million in damages; this is a numerical claim as a set number was used to demonstrate exactly how much Osorio was given.
  3. Consumers: The table saws that do have the safety feature which prevent injuries to those who use it by stopping when coming in close contact to human flesh have received nothing but praise and good reviews. This can be identified as a causal claim simply for the fact that: having the table saw included with the safety feature (cause) will result in no complaints regarding injuries from those who buy it (effect).
  4. News Reporters: “If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?” is the title of an article published on the NPR website. The title alone makes a evaluative claim. News reporter, Chris Arnold, asks and judges why manufacturers haven’t added on this life-saving feature that Steve Gass invented that prevents injuries when it comes to table saws.
  5. Government Officials: In a news article titled Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology, the author states that the federal regulators are considering making Gass’ invention as a mandatory add on to table saws. This possible new rule proves to be a causal claim because if government officials were to set in place the requirement of Gass’ add on safety feature then as a result less injuries would arise due to the fault of table saws.
  6. Manufacturers: “You commissioners have the power to take one of the most dangerous products ever available to consumers and make it vastly safer” is what Steve Gass said at a public hearing for his new invention. He is using ethos to get people to acknowledge that his way is the right and safe way to go about regarding table saws. This is a moral claim.
  7. Safety Advocates: “The closest parallel we can find to a story like this is that of a seatbelt”. This statement is an analogy claim as it is comparing the new table saw feature which can prevent injuries to those who use table saws to that of a seatbelt which gives those in a vehicle an extra layer of protection should they get into an accident.
  8. Industry Spokesperson: The SawStop company has given the information regarding one of their products saying: “The saw weighs 79 pounds and retails for $1299”. This statement can be seen as a numerical claim as it tells us the readers the weight and cost of the product that is trying to be sold to consumers.
Posted in gooferious, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Open Strong – gooferious

Posted on October 20, 2020 by gooferious

The world is a complex place filled with complex people. War, chaos and anarchy are still prevalent to this day. What drives a person to do unspeakable acts? Is it possibly a childhood trauma that has forever clouded their judgement and reasoning? Or is it merely for pure personal gain? What if I said that there was a way to decrease the chances of someone continuing to think in a manner so selfish and egocentric. Forcing young adults into therapy rather than the voluntary choice will increase the likelihood of them becoming outstanding members of society.

The word therapy can manifest different reactions to different people. Some don’t see the wrong in going to therapy while others blatantly refuse to even acknowledge it as a solution. Evidence shows whether we like it or not that therapy is a efficient way for people to release stress and work through their problems with the help of a professional. For those that cannot afford therapy, have no fear as therapy will now be available to any person who dreams of becoming a more educated, well-rounded adult. This is especially helpful for the young adults who have been through a world of pain and suffering, the one guarantee that comes with therapy is coming out as an outstanding member of society.

Posted in gooferious, Open Strong Take Home | 1 Comment

Safer Saws-ComicDub

Posted on October 20, 2020 by comicdub
  1. Manufacturers: “SawStop is currently available…to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.” In this quote the power tool manufacturer is making the claim that the SawStop technology is available to anyone who wants it so it should not be made mandatory to incorporate it in their own table saws as well. This is a proposal claim because the manufacturer is making the proposal that SawStop is already available to those who want it, so they shouldn’t have to use it in their products too.
  2. Customers: “…the safety innovations are well worth it in the shop.” In this quote, the consumer is implying that the SawStop’s finger saving safety feature is well worth paying the extra money to have in their shop. This is an evaluative claim because it uses the safety feature of the SawStop to make the evaluation that with the SawStop, they’ll be less likely to cut their finger off. This claim is effective as most people will agree that they’d rather keep their finger than save a couple hundred dollars when buying a saw.
  3. Government Officials: “…will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold…” just from reduced emergency room visits and amputations from saw blades. This is a numerical claim that provides the reader with the projected medical costs that the whole of society will save per SawStop sale. Some people will see saving money for the entirety of society as a plus, while more self centered people might not care in the slightest. They might only care about how much they themselves save which would be nothing, as the price of the SawStop is more than a normal table saw. That means this claim might not be as effective for that specific group of people.
  4. New Reporters: “…figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents.” In the quote the news reporter is claiming that Steve Gass figured out a way to prevent just about all table saw accidents with his invention of the SawStop. This is an evaluative claim as the reporter made the evaluation that the SawStop will prevent almost all table saw injuries based on the concept and testing results of the SawStop.
  5. Steve Gass: “…take one of the most dangerous products ever available to consumers and make it vastly safer.” In this quote Gass is claiming that the SawStop will make the table saw, a very dangerous product, vastly safer. This is a very bold claim that can be seen as a causal claim. Gass is claiming that the SawStop will cause the table saw to become a much safer product.
  6. News Reporters: “It will fail.” In this quote the news reporter is making the claim that opposition to the proposed rulemaking on table saws and SawStop in general, will fail. This is an evaluative claim that comes from the fact that the CSPC, Consumer Product Safety Commission, are the ones who proposed the rulemaking which is stated prior to this claim. The reporter uses the name of the CSPC to get the reader to make the evaluation that the claim must be true because a government agency is backing the rulemaking, so the opposition must fail. It is a simple yet effective claim that is hard to refute because of the authority of the CSPC, the reason behind this claim.
  7. Industry Spokespeople: “…it’s too expensive…” In this quote, the power tool industry spokesperson is making the claim that the SawStop technology is too expensive. This can be seen as an evaluative numerical claim because the spokesperson is making the evaluation based on the prices of other table saws, that the SawStop’s price is too high. The spokesperson is basically saying that the extra cost of the SawStop is not worth saving their own finger.
  8. Personal Injury Lawyers: “…injuries could have been prevented…” In this quote the Injury Lawyer is saying that had the SawStop technology been implemented sooner, many injuries could have been prevented. This can be seen as an ethical claim that puts blame on the people opposed to the SawStop for all of the injuries from table saws that the SawStop could have prevented. 
Posted in comicdub, Safer Saws | Leave a comment

Causal – PardonmyFrench

Posted on October 20, 2020 by pardonmyfrench13

I am having a little trouble deciding the right topic for my essay. What I have so far is I could say social media decreases self-esteem in college students and therefor increases the risk of suicide. I could also link it to the number of likes someone gets playing a role in how they feel and if they post to social media frequently or not. Another cause and effect that could be looked at is the demand for social media will never go away so neither will the platforms nor likes completely. Basically I just wanted to know in your opinion if any of these sound better than the other from an outside perspective. Thanks in advance!!

Posted in Causal Argument, pardonmyfrench | 1 Comment

causal

Posted on October 20, 2020 by 612119d

I could use some help getting started

Posted in 612119d, Causal Argument | Leave a comment

causal Tcarter101

Posted on October 20, 2020 by tcarter101

I could use some help getting started

Posted in Causal Argument | 1 Comment

Causal – clementine

Posted on October 20, 2020 by clementine102

Here are some of my ideas for a casual argument. I am not sure if they are good arguments or if I could even make a better casual argument. If these aren’t good enough, I might need a little help on an idea to write about for my casual argument.

1.) Having an abortion causes many woman to have mental disorders
2.) Third trimester abortions causes physical and metal health issues
3.) Being careless about preparing for a baby if you are sexually intimate and not respecting your future could lead a mother into the decision of abortion.
4.) Being absent in sexual intimacy will decrease the chance of an unexpected pregnancy, which will lead to a lower chance for the need to have an abortion, which would also decrease the chance of mothers contracting mental disorders from the traumatic experience.
5.) Abortion is not easy as much as people say it is.

Posted in Causal Argument, clementine | 1 Comment

Causal-rowanstudent24

Posted on October 20, 2020 by rowanstudent24

I’m not 100% sure where I want to start but I am researching how broken homes can be the cause of animal abuse. I have also found that there are several other causes as well that really convey the animal abuse to keep happening. I believe this argument will have several causes for a single effect.

Posted in Causal Argument, rowanstudent24 | Leave a comment

Causal Argument- runnerd4

Posted on October 20, 2020 by runnerd4

Is it All About the Speed?

The popular belief among the general population is that speeding causes accidents, and while on the surface that statement may be true, it is not the full truth. The truth is that many other key factors are involved in the causation of an accident, not just speeding. A few examples of these key factors include accident-prone interactions, distractions, and critical driving decisions. These factors must be considered instead of simply placing the blame on speeding. 

One main circumstance in the risk of causation of accidents is the amount of time that two cars spend next to each other. In a 2002 study conducted by David Nanon, he called these “accident-prone interactions” (API), which previously described are simply situations where two cars come near to each other. It is a very simple concept, the more time two cars spend next to each other, the greater risk of an accident. The study showed that while APIs have a direct relationship with the number of accidents, speed has an inverse relationship with the number of APIs.

In his study, he found that each type of API was either unaffected or reduced by greater speeds. For type-A APIs, the number of encounters was unaffected by greater speeds, but in the write up for the study, Nanon explained that this type of situation was more or less irrelevant to highway driving because it was considering interactions at intersections. A higher frequency of type-A APIs would increase the rate of accidents substantially due to the critical driving decisions made at an intersection. The frequency of type-B APIs was reduced at greater speeds. Nanon explained that driving at higher speeds decreases the time that drivers spend on the road and decrease the number of cars that they come in contact with. Decreasing the number of cars that they come in contact with traveling in the opposite direction definitely would help decrease the rates of accidents on highways. On the other hand, an increase in the number of cars traveling in the opposite direction going past each other would cause an increase in the rate of accidents on a road. Next, the frequency of type-C APIs was also greatly reduced at higher driving speeds. Nanon explained that the main reason for this is because since the two cars would be traveling past each other in the same direction at such a fast rate, the amount of time they spend next to each other would be minimal. The less time two cars spend next to each other, the lower risk of accidents. Finally, the number of type-D APIs would also be decreased when traveling at a higher rate of speed. Like all of the other situations, the less time two cars spend next to each other, the lower the chance of an accident. 

Next, another key factor in the causation of accidents is distractions. Distractions come in many forms such as phone usage, radio usage, eating, smoking, talking with passengers, checking the speedometer and reading billboards, or anything else that causes the driver to no longer is fully attentive to driving. In a study conducted by the National Highway Safety Administration and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, “Nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds before the event.” This evidence shows that distractions play a huge role in the causation of accidents. When a driver is distracted, they usually take their eyes off of the road, which leads them to not be able to see any cars or pedestrians in front of them. Distractions put the driver and other drivers at risk. 

The main form of distraction seen all over today is texting and driving. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “ Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road for 5 seconds. At 55 mph, that’s like driving the length of an entire football field with your eyes closed.” This is a serious issue, especially at high speeds. If a driver travels the distance of a football field without paying attention to the road, that would greatly increase the risk of an accident, just like any other form of distraction.

Another common form of distraction while driving is checking the speedometer. Most drivers constantly check the speedometer to ensure that they are not going above the speed limit to avoid being ticketed. In a study conducted by Safe Speed, it was found that it takes the human eyes 0.91 seconds on average to check the speedometer and refocus on the road. That fact is concerning considering that an accident can occur just in a split second. 

Next, another key factor in the causation of accidents is the critical driving decisions made on the road. These critical driving decisions most commonly occur at intersections and occur before the majority of accidents. When the driver makes the wrong decision, there is a much higher risk of an accident occurring than if the driver made the correct decision. For example, if a driver timed their left turn at an intersection with oncoming traffic incorrectly, it could very well likely lead to an accident. According to Choi from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “In the case of 22.2 percent of crashes, the critical event was turning left…” Making the wrong decision leads to an accident occurring. Although making these decisions at a higher speed could be more difficult, most of these decisions are not commonly made on highways because highways generally do not have intersections.

It is paramount to understand that speed is not the only factor in accidents. Many other factors are just as important if not more important than speed, and ignoring these factors does a disservice to your understanding of the role that speed plays in accidents. The APIs are arguably the most important in the causation of accidents, and it shows that higher speed either has no effect or reduces the frequency of APIs. A lower number of APIs would lead to a lower number of accidents. Next, distractions are a huge factor in the causation of accidents. One of these distractions is checking the speedometer and without having to worry about speeding, that distraction could be eliminated on highways altogether. Highways are also designed to decrease the number of distractions through strategies such as cutting the number of billboards. Finally, critical driving decisions are another key factor in the causation of accidents. Making the wrong decision increases the rate of accidents. Although it is difficult to make these decisions at higher speeds, the majority of these decisions are rarely made on highways.

References

Navon, D. (2002, January 30). The paradox of driving speed: Two adverse effects on highway accident rate. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000118

VTTI and NHTSA. (2006, April 21). Findings Released On Real-world Driver Behavior, Distraction, Crash Factors. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060420233031.htm

Currin, A. (2020, October 05). U Drive. U Text. U Pay. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

Temp. (2004). The Speedo. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html

Choi, E. (2010, September). Crash Factors in Intersection-Related Crashes: An On-Scene Perspective. Retrieved October 26, 2020, from Crash Factors in Intersection-Related Crashes: An On-Scene Perspective

Posted in Causal Argument, Portfolio RunnerD4, runnerd4 | 6 Comments