Safe saws- not cilantro

Source 1: Bosh tools sawstop lawsuit

1. “On top of all this, in terms if table saw safety, kickbacks are certainly more dangerous, and cause far more injuries each year, than cutting off fingers.”
2. This new technology is making other companies to raise their prices even when their tools are not safe.
3. Evaluative claim- it makes the reader question whether companies should make better tools to match the price or reduce the quality for a different price.
4. I don’t support this company in particular because they seem to care about profit and they don’t believe in their products and its safety.

Source 2: Feds might force table saw makers to adopt radically safer technology

1. “The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1500 tp $4000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work”
2. Timothy Lee examines the self retractable table saw which prevents accidents and low cost to replace blade.
3. Evaluative numerical claim- The article provides numerical data to demonstrate the savings from using this tool. Yes the saw costs more and must be replaced if need be but it will save much more than when accidents happen using basic technology.
4. I support this new technology. I think its the right step into the future. I also like how the creator believes in his craft and defends it against critics in the market.

Source 3: The saw that won’t cut your fingers has arrived

1. “I would say that the first time you accidentally trip the blade 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“
2. The bosh saw costs more than other saws but the saw blade can be replaced for a smaller amount of money compared to medical bills when your finger gets cut off.
3. Proposal claim- Bosh tries to convince the audience as well as the market retailers to use his saw because its safe and ensures that one won’t get hurt. The bolded part of the quote describes his proposal claim to use his saw instead of others.
4. I think it persuades to the audience because he illustrates how different ones live would be with this technology.

Source 4: U.S. consumer product safety commission

1. “For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.”
2. Suggests that the table saw causes many injuries to customers.
3. Causal claim- It indicates fault in manufactures because they didn’t want to produce the sawstop and due to this still causes injuries around.
4. I think they are taking his guilt claim too far. Blaming the manufactures instead of blaming companies to make better and safer technology.