“Consumer advocates are asking the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the federal agency responsible for protecting Americans from dangerous products, to require manufacturers to include the new safety mechanism. Though the proposal was introduced in 2003, it has languished due to industry opposition. Table saw design has remained relatively unchanged in the last 50 years, and adding the safety devices would add an estimated $100 to the price of the saw.”-Table Saw Injury Lawyer, The Schmidt Firm, LLP
The Schmidt Firm claims that the table saw industry’s fear of raising saw prices is the reason for not incorporating the safety device.
The second sentence, claiming that the proposal “has languished due to industry opposition,” is a definitional claim. The Schmidt Firm is claiming that the proposal is currently languishing. It is also claimed that “table saw design has remained relatively unchanged in the last 50 years,” which is another definitional claim, as the claim is that table saw design is unchanged.
I believe that the claims are very persuasive. Without saying it outright, the author’s claims accuse the saw industry of prioritizing sales over the safety of customers. The claim about the industry being “unchanged” is followed directly by a fact about the safety technology adding about 100 dollars to the price of saws. This is a quick, almost passive-aggressive jab at the industry itself. However, the author doesn’t explain how the proposal is languishing. For all they know, I could be an uninformed reader who may think that this proposal has a huge following, simply bearing no results…almost like the Chicago Cubs of Major League Baseball.