Source 1: In the article, “The Saw That Won’t Cut Off Your Fingers Has Arrived,” author Roy Berendsohn discusses how the Bosch saw works and how he tested its capabilities. In explaining how long it takes to reset the machine, he states,
I would say that the first time you accidentally trip the blade (say, with a piece of wet lumber or by hitting a metal staple) it’ll take you a couple of minutes to get everything sorted out and get the saw running. Either way it beats sawing into your thumb.
This is an evaluative/proposal claim. Berendsohn evaluates that after personal experience that if the blade is to retract, fixing the saw will take a few minutes to get the saw functioning again. By adding the last sentence, he also introduces a highly persuasive proposal claim, suggesting something that I’m sure many people would agree with: that a few minutes of extra work is better than a lost limb.
Source 2: Sally Greenberg, National Consumers League executive director, is the author of the article “10 Amputations a Day: A Need for a Safer Table Saw.” In her piece, she addresses the dire need for this product to be available to the public. Her final sentence drives this point home in her statement,
10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.
This is a factual claim, it states the number of amputations caused per day as a result of table saw injury. This claim is focused on throughout the entirety of the excerpt, as the author uses facts along with her strong opinion that there is no reason this product should not be on the market already. I agree that the saw should be introduced to consumers, regardless of how many amputations arise per day when the number could instead be zero.
Source 3: In this document, classified as the statement regarding “THE COMMISSION DECISION TO ISSUE AN ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANPR) FOR PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS TABLE SAW BLADE CONTACT INJURIES”, Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the CPSC addresses the commission’s rulemaking for reducing table saw injuries. In this document, the chairman claims,
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—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.
This is a factual numerical claim. It analyzes the very high number of blade injuries over one year along with the $2.36 billion dollar price tag that came with those mishaps. This claim appears highly reliable based on the source, as the chairman continues this claim in emphasizing the need for safer table saws. I agree with the fact that the increased costs in table saw production do not outweigh the costs in current injuries per year.
Source 4: In the article, “Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology,” author Timothy Lee examines the pros and cons to the idea of a self-retracting table saw, along with the implications of putting it on the market. In one claim, he states,
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.
This is an evaluative numerical claim. The text argues that switching to a safer table saw could prove beneficial because although the saw cost may be much more, we would be saving billions of dollars a year from lack of table saw related injuries. Although this seems quite reliable considering this data was predicted by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, I’m not sure you can claim that “society” as a whole will save billions versus people who frequently work in conjunction with table saws.
Source 5: In this excerpt under “Table Saw Amputation Lawyer” for the Schmidt law firm, it discusses injuries related to table saws lacking this safer technology and encourages victims to contact the firm. The article exemplifies how “SawStop” could prevent these injuries in stating,
Since 2000, a safety device called the “SawStop” has existed that could prevent nearly all table saw amputations, but manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw).
This is a factual/ethical and moral claim, as it directs the focus on the statement that this saw has the ability to prevent table saw amputations but has not been introduced to products because of the higher costs that accompanies them. The claim identifies as an ethical/moral claim because it appears to put the blame on the manufacturers for the victims injuries, seeing as they are the ones refusing to put the new saw technology into action.