Safer Saws Part 2- Brianne Waters

  1. “When skin contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive.”-Manufacturers. This is a causal claim. It is saying because of the conductive properties of the human body, the contact causes the signal to change. This is a compelling claim for the manufacturers because it shows just how the SawStop works.
  2. “Society will save money if safer saws are required.”-Customers. This is a causal claim. It saying that requiring safer saws will cause society to save money. This is a compelling claim from the consumers. It is basically saying that they don’t mind spending the extra money for the safer technology because in the end they will be saving money.
  3. “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”-Industry Spokespeople. This can either be considered a causal claim or an evaluation claim. It is a causal claim because it states that most injuries are caused by the kickback. It is an evaluation claim because it compares blade contact table saw injuries with kickback table saw injuries. It is an effective argument for the spokespeople because it shows that the SawStop may not really be helping prevent a ton of injuries compared to something that may prevent the kickback.
  4. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,”-Consumer Safety Advocates. This is a causal claim. It states that this technology causes a reduction in all table saw injuries. It is an effective claim because it shows that the SawStop is helpful in stopping injury.
  5. “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market,”-Injured Plaintiffs. This is a causal claim. It states that by not employing safer alternatives, it has caused for the SawStop to not become state of the art. This is a compelling case because it shows that the major tool producers have really shut the SawStop out in order to keep their products selling.
  6. “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”- Personal Injury Lawyers. This is an evaluation claim because it is comparing table saws to all other woodworking tools. I do not find the claim to be very compelling but it does successfullly refute those who say that the SawStop technology is useless because it is only available on the table saws.
  7.  “I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.” —Government Officials. This is a categorical claim because it says that table saw injuries belong to the category of gruesome injuries. It is compelling because it adds severity to table saw injuries and thus proves that safety precautions are needed.
  8. “Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.”-News Reporters. This is a definitional claim. This claim states that the SawStop is proven safe. The reporter says that the proof that the manufacturer has provided is enough to deem this product safe and effective.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Brianne Waters. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Safer Saws Part 2- Brianne Waters

  1. briannewaters3 says:

    I know this is not done, I just had some time to work on it so I did a couple of claims.

  2. davidbdale says:

    Good idea, Brianne.

    5 is such a breathtaking claim, isn’t it? By itself, of course, it could never be conclusive since it depends so much on the evidence, but in its context, is it compelling? Is there a cogent argument in the article it comes from to support this cynical interpretation of the defendant’s motivation? In other words, is it a logical claim? (Remember, you can evaluate the claim’s accuracy, quality, reasonableness, logic, and persuasiveness.)

    I see you’ve worked on 6, Brianne. What about the claim would make it compelling for you? If it’s the woodworking tool that causes the most injury (even if that’s not many injuries), isn’t that a good argument to improve its safety? You seem to say so yourself when you note that it has to be worthwhile to consider a technology that reduces injuries on the most injurious tool, even if we can only fix one tool.

    7 is certainly categorical. It’s complex though, isn’t it? The government official, in pointing out that table saw injuries are gruesome might be arguing that they must be avoided but on the other hand . . . . If I wanted to argue against mandates for necktie regulations, to take a ridiculous example, I’d probably say, “While the one necktie fatality that occurred last year was a messy and slow beheading, the gruesomeness of that one case cannot be allowed to compel the entire necktie industry to make every necktie a ‘breakaway’ model.” So while I agree with you that the gruesomeness is compelling, I can’t quite agree that it proves safety precautions are needed.

  3. davidbdale says:

    I completely disagree with your conclusion about 2, but I remain impressed with the overall quality of your analytical work here, Brianne. You’re just good at this.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s