Safer Saws Part II- Nicole Clark

1.  Manufacturers:  “Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position.”  This is a proposal claim because it states how SawStop is asking for the eight percent and making a proposal.

2.  Customers:   “Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added cost, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers.”   This is an proposal claim because it shows that consumer choice can help gain widespread acceptance by the customers in the end.

3.  Industry Spokespeople:   “Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.”  This is an consequential claim because it shows the consequences when people use table saws.

4.  Consumer Safety Advocates:  “Yet, blade guards have proved to be ineffective in reducing the 40,000 serious table saw injuries that occur every year.”  This is an evaluation claim because it states that the result of the blade guards and how they did not help in reducing the amount of injuries each year.

5.  Injured Plaintiffs:  “This week, a man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.”  This is an consequential claim that shows the consequence of this man using a table saw and the result of his actions.

6.  Personal Injury Lawyers:  “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”  This is a consequential claim that states how many people have gotten hurt as a result of the table saw and the consequences of using one.

7.  Government Officials:  “When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet  preventable injuries were unacceptable.”  This is an consequential claim because it states the facts of the injuries due to table saws.

8.  News Reporters:  “The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability.”  This is an evaluation claim because it shows what is happening as a result of the Bosch case.

This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Nicole Clark. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Safer Saws Part II- Nicole Clark

  1. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Nicole. Thanks for asking for feedback. I think I can clear up a few things for you.

    Manufacturers. Actually, the author of this quote is hardly making a claim at all. She is describing a situation factually. Gass is making a proposal (but not a claim) to manufacturers, offering them a deal to license his invention. The manufacturers are certainly making a claim: that Gass is trying to extort money from them. That would be a categorical claim: that Gass’s proposal falls into the category of extortion.

    Customers. Actually, the author of this quote does not appear to be a customer making claims, but a reporter describing a situation. She does appear to be making an evaluation claim: that rather than a mandate, the marketplace can dictate whether a majority of saw buyers will choose to pay for the more expensive saws.

    Industry. I completely agree that this is a consequential claim, but it almost certainly is not made by a spokesperson for the saw industry. The industry is more likely to blame customer negligence for injuries than to blame saws.

    Safety. Agreed. Consumer safety advocates favor the SawStop technology and consider blade guards ineffective.

    Plaintiffs. Well, sort of. The important consequential claims by the plaintiff are that he was injured by an unsafe saw, that Bosch has resisted building a safer saw, and that Bosch’s negligence, not the customers, is the cause of the victim’s injury.

    Lawyers. I agree this statement claims most table saw injuries are from kickback, but I’d be surprised to find that it was made by personal injury lawyers. Is that possible? Why would they want to minimize the danger of cut injuries and amputations?

    Government. It does state consequences, I agree, Nicole. But the claim is clearly an evaluation of the seriousness and unacceptability of the injuries. You could also call it categorical: the Commission classified these injuries in the “unacceptable” category.

    Reporters. The reporter makes no particular claim of her own. She’s just reporting on the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The plaintiff is making several categorical claims: That Bosch is negligent; that they breached their warranty; that they sell a product full of liabilities.

    It’s essential in evaluating the arguments of other writers to identify who is actually making the claims, Nicole. If I say “Nicole thinks her writing is misunderstood,” I’m not making a claim about Nicole’s writing or how it was judged. I’m simply reporting on Nicole’s state of mind. But since I can’t actually know Nicole’s state of mind (only she can), I must be making an evaluation claim based on my observations, that Nicole has an opinion about someone else’s opinion of her writing.

    As always, I’d appreciate knowing if any of this is helpful.

  2. clarkn92 says:

    Thank you for your feedback. I have bee having trouble with identifying claims and seeing what type of claim they are. I will most definitely look over the claims I have chosen and see which ones were not claims. I am also going to look over the different types of claims and examples of each. But thank you for your feedback on the ones I have chosen !

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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