Source 1
In the article “SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detection and Blade-Braking Tech,” there are different claims that fall into different categories including factual claims and opinions.
“I’ve tried to be fair, but the more I hear about SawStop and Stephen Gass, the more of a bully and a jerk they seem to be.”
“Sounds ridiculous to me. Hey, because you didn’t pay us to license our technology, we’re suing you for damages. As mentioned above, the suit was dismissed.”
Both claims reflect the author’s perspective. It is very clear that the author is against the behavior of Stephen Gass because he refers to them as a pure demonstration of selfishness and evil. When the writer includes the sentence “Hey, because you didn’t pay us to license our technology, we’re suing you for damages,”he indirectly establishes a conversation with the audience to persuade them in an unusual way. By that I mean that the objective of this sentence is to make the author’s perspective appealing and veridical. When I read that sentence, I feel like Stephen Gass care more about profit than safety. In this case, the author is very effective when trying to put the audience on his side.
“In recent years, they sued 22 companies, including Bosch and other table saw manufacturers, for allegedly forming a secret boycott of SawStop’s technology.”
This is a factual claim because statistical evidence is used to demonstrate that the argument made is supported by real data. The purpose of using actual evidence is to make the argument credible. The author is concise and clear when presenting the data because he uses very few words that result to be very persuasive. Even though the author does not show where this information come from, it is data that the audience can easily find on the internet if they are willing to make sure that the data is real.
Source 2
In the article “Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase,” the author addresses the advantages of adding safety technology in manufacturing.
“Each year, more than 67,000 U.S. workers and do-it-yourselfers suffer blade contact injuries, according to government estimates, including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.
It is a factual claim because it provides the audience with statistical data that seems to come from well-stablished studies. This claim is very persuasive because it uses great numerical values that cause sensitive effects on the audience. It is a causal claim as well because it shows some of the consequences of using conventional saws. The purpose of this claim is to convince the audience that the acquirement of available safety technology, SawStop, prevents work accidents such as injuries and amputations. This claim has ability to transmit a clear message using strong evidence that examine the negative effects of disagreeing with the argument made. You can tell that the author is in favor of table saw safety and his main purpose is to show the audience that this technology is worth.
Source 3
In the article “Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit,” the author states:
“No offense, but I don’t think this is a move by Bosch to prevent safety devices, but simply a move to prevent the unintended consequences of adding mandatory safety devices that would, in some instances, double the price of entry level power saws. If the technology were not under patent I would be more apt to explore the concept of encouraging manufacturers to push this technology forward – as an OPTION. However, the manufacturing costs, coupled with licensing fees, make this an almost ridiculous prospect.”
This claim illustrates the author’s perspective. It presents some economic disadvantages related to the addition of mandatory safety devices such as SawStop technology. The main argument made in this claim is that the prices of table saws would double if innovative safety technology was mandatory in manufacturing. The author purposefully includes the word “option” using capital letters to make sure that the audience comprehend that his argument is based on the inclusion safety devices as a choice, not an obligation. I agree with the author because I think that customers should be the ones who decide the product they want to purchase assuming total responsibility of their choices.
Source 4
The author of the article called “Table Saw Injury Lawyer” claims:
“If you or somebody you know was injured, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation. Please use the form below to contact our Product Liability Litigation Group or call toll free 24 hours a day at (866) 920-0753.”
it is a proposal claim as it invites people that are victims of work injuries related to the use of conventional saws to take legal action over these cases. This claim provides a phone number that facilitate the access of help for those who need it.
“SawStop is a safety device that can detect skin contact with the saw blade and stops the blade within milliseconds.”
This is a definition claim because it explains the essence of the SawStop technology. The author also includes the uses of this technology to define it. Including the definition of the technology is very valuable because in that way the audience is aware of the central idea of the article.
Source 5
In the article “Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology,” it is claimed that:
“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.”
It is a factual claim because it provides the audience statistical evidence that comes from a legit study by a specific governmental entity. The fact that the CPSC is a government agency creates a sense of credibility about the data presented in this claim. It is also an evaluative claim as it examines some of the advantages of adding safety devices in manufacturing. The author may have included this claim as an analysis that evaluates the effectiveness of taking a specific course of action, which in this case is including safety technology in industries not only to prevent injuries, but to reduce the costs of medical bills and lost work.
Counterintuitive 