Safer Saws- misterfries19

1A. Schmidt Law Firm– Outraged Plaintiff- On the website for Schmidt Law Firm, a post regarding injuries due to table saws reads “Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”

1B. The Law Firm is making the claim that manufacturers are well aware of a new and advanced technology that can be used to prevent injuries when using table saws, but have neglected to adopt it. SawStop flesh-detecting technology gives the saw the ability to stop completely in 1/200th of a second, if it touches human flesh, which would prevent any damage or injury. But, it has not been widely accepted.

1C. The Law Firm is making an Evaluative claim about the manufacturers. After evaluating the technology available and the amount of manufacturer’s using the technology, the firm makes it’s claim that not all manufacturers have adopted the technique.

1D. This is a reasonable claim that doesn’t portray all manufacturers unfairly, but calls out the minority that have yet to adopt such an obvious improvement. It is effect enough because in all honesty, this is the kind of technology that all table saw companies should utilize. Although most already do, I still find myself offended that a few do not.

2A. Amputation Lawyer– Again we visit the Schmidt Law Firm website, where they also deal with amputations as a result of table saw accidents. The site claims “Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year.”

2B. The Law Firm is making the claim that out of all injuries due to table saws, 10% result in amputations every year.

2C. The Schmidt Law Firm is making a numerical claim when they say that 10% or 1/10 of all annual injuries due to table saws result in amputations.

2D. The claim is most likely not inaccurate, as it is backed up with actual numbers that aren’t outrageous, but it is not backed up with a source for the statistics. However, while the claim doesn’t portray the amputations as being unbelievably common, they do show that they do indeed happen, and you are not alone in seeking help.

3A. Rules Mandating Safe Laws are Likely to Pass- In relation to the probability that mandating safe power tool laws is inevitable, ToolGuyd.com states that “There’s been no mass media attention to this. No outcry by the Power Tool Institute urging bloggers and woodworkers to object to this.”

3B. The claim basically states that, in regards to the possibility that power tool manufacturers will be mandated to use safer techniques, there has been no type of reaction from power tool enthusiasts to combat these mandates.

3C. The claim is evaluative, but it is almost an ethical/moral claim as well. It is evaluating the situation and quantifying how many people did not speak out against the probable new mandates, claiming that nobody has brought attention to this. The tone in which he says this intends to invoke a sense of guilt from the media and Power Tool Institute, which questions their morals.

3D. This claim is not backed up by any source, but it is possible that the claim is not untrue because, well, having regulated safety technology that can save lives and injuries is a progressive idea that the media wouldn’t want to halt.

4A. Power Tool Industry Too Powerful-However, SawStop still makes the only saws with skin-sensing technology, and it accounts for a tiny fraction of sales.” 

4B. This is claiming that SawStop is the only manufacturer with this finger-saving tool in the industry, and it still doesn’t really sell.

4C. This is a comparative claim. By saying that SawStop makes the only saws with this technology, they are being separated from other companies in the industry, and their capabilities are being compared.

4D. This is an effective claim that makes the reader cast doubt over what it is that people aren’t seeing about the SawStop saws. Coming off of a lot of talk about how much help the SawStop saws may be, this sentence grabs the reader and makes them ask themselves “why?”

5A. Government Action Pending – In a statement pertaining to the proposal of mandated rules for power tool safety, Chairman Inez Tanenbaum stated“Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”

5B. Inez Tanenbaum makes the claim that he had previously urged for legislation regarding safety with power tools, and when he did, nothing was done about it.

5C. Tanenbaum makes an evaluative claim about the reaction people had from his initial Moral/ethical claim, where he called for people to move towards more safety provisions. In this sentence, he is making an evaluative claim, but he is referencing a moral claim.

5D. This is a smart, self-serving claim that serves to better the image of Tanenbaum in light of the probable laws being passed. In the context of the article, Tanenbaum is happy that the changes are finally being made, and he cites a time when he called for the changes in the first place as a sort of triumphant reminder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s