1A
I spent two days earlier this month at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), listening to the pros and cons of setting a mandatory safety standard for table saws. Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day!
10 amputations a day: the need for a safer table saw
1B As stated in the title, the claim is being made that there must be a safer table saw due to ten people having their fingers amputed every year in power saw accidents.
1C The first sentence is a defintive claim. The rest of the quotation is a quantative claim.
1D Using the information from the CPSC data finding that ten people every day are being amputatad by these out dated table saws is a good way to have readers grasp the severity of the problem.
They’ve argued that injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents—including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—is exaggerated.
Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injury Increase
2B The power tool idustry is making the claim that the annual medicall costs, as well as the number of accidents is exaggerated.
2C This seems to be a categorical claim, as well as an evaluative claim, since the numbers are belived to be exaggerated.
2D This claim is not yet fully supported and is therefore not factual. There is no evidence of the costs and injuries being exaggerated, so I do not think this is a very good argument.
Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year. Fingers, hands, and arms are the most common parts of the body that are amputated. Only 20% of the injuries occur in people who are on the job, where injuries are usually covered by workplace accident insurance.
3B There are a couple of claims being made here. The first being that a majority of saw table accidents result in amputation, mostly fingers, hands, and arms. The next claim is. that most people who are injured are not on the job, therfore not recieving medical insurance.
3C All are evaluative. The first sentece is a quantative claim, while the second sentence is a causal claim; 4,000 injuries result in amputations. The third sentence is a cateogorical claim. The last sentence appears to also be a quantative claim.
3D There is no telling if these claims are true based just on this passage, but I would have to say the many different quantative claims used do help shed light on the issue.
‘Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625.
4B The claim is being made the sawstop will now be unafforable to consumers, with the added safety material.
4C Evaluative Numerical claim
4D I do no think this is a very persuasive claim. Safety is more important than cost, in my opinion.
By giving his blade a slight electric charge, his saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and stop spinning in a few milliseconds.
5B Making the claim that the saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and wil stop spinnining.
5C Evaluative causal claim.
5D There is no evidence in the accuracy of this claim.
Counterintuitive 