Safer Saws Part 2-Taylor Brody

  1. Manufacturers: According to The Power Tool Institute, “The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product…” This is a definitional  claim, because The Power Tool Institute is claiming that the technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product. This way, readers will have little ground to debate this claim. The claim is that it is a fact that the estimated raise in price is $150-$200.
  2. Customers: Pro Tool Reviews says that, “On top of all this, in terms of table saw safety, kickbacks are certainly more dangerous, and cause far more injuries each year, than cutting off fingers.” This is an evaluation claim that kickbacks cause more injuries and are more dangerous than cutting off fingers. This reviewer uses “causes far more than” for emphasis to convince the reader(s).
  3. Industry Spokespeople: Spokespeople from The Power Tool Institute makes a definitional claim that “a false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)” Is $59 a high price? These spokespeople claim to have an answer to that question.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates: Consumer safety advocates claim that, “…if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.” This is a causal claim, stating that if there was a mandatory rule, it would result in a more difficult process for the industry.
  5. Injured Plaintiffs: According to an injured plaintiff, his “permanent and ‘traumatic injury’ could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.” This is a causal claim, because the plaintiff is saying that if the industries had not rejected the safety technology, injury could have been avoided.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers: “If you or somebody you know has been injured after using a table saw, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free Table Saw lawsuit consultation,” says The Schmidt Firm, LLP. This is a proposal claim by the lawyers to try and influence victims of table saw injuries to file a lawsuit against the table saw companies through The Schmidt Firm, LLP. The simple use of “should” in this claim can cause many easily swayed readers trust this law firm.
  7. Government Officials: Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum of the CPSC claims that, “one of the CPSC’s primary goals is a commitment to prevention.” This is a definitional claim that one of the CPSC’s goals is a commitment to prevention. Tenenbaum is attempting to comfort the reader in order to gain his/her trust.
  8. News Reporters: Chris Arnold of NPR claims that, “a hot dog has about the same salt and moisture content as a human finger.” This is a resemblance claim because he is claiming that a hot dog’s salt and moisture content resembles that of a human finger.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Taylor Brody. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Safer Saws Part 2-Taylor Brody

  1. davidbdale says:

    Excellent work, Taylor.

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