Saws Part II – Mike Middleton

Manufacturers – The Delta industry said “Safety doesn’t sell.” I think this is both an evaluation and a proposal claim. The reason is because the company doesn’t necessarily say that SawStop is good or bad, but rather they say that we shouldn’t do this due to the fact that it would have a very bad impact on the future of table saws.

Customers – Joel Lopez states to NPR “I’m getting one for myself and I’m getting one for my commercial shop, I mean I don’t see where I have a choice. My fingers are valuable; anyone I have coming in my shop or working for me it’s definitely important.” This is an evaluation claim because Joel states his opinion about SawStop and why he feels that it is a good invention.

Industry Spokespeople – “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” I would identify this claim as an evaluation in argument against SawStop. The company is trying to refute the necessity of having SawStop as protection on all saw devices.

Consumer Safety Advocates – “It is wrong to say that consumers will pay more if safer saws are required because society is already paying $2 billion per year due to preventable table saw injuries.  Society will save money if safer saws are required.” This is a proposal claim reported by National Consumers League that identifies the long term financial results of the amount of money which would be saved if saw industries were required to use SawStop.

Injured Plaintiffs – A man injured by a Bosch table saw claimed that Bosch, “acting through PTI, has also actively lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission … to prevent the adoption of flesh detection systems as a safety standard on table says.” He also stated that if Bosch had utilized the technology offered by SawStop then his injury never would have occurred and that it is their fault for it to have happened. I am not totally sure what type of claim it is; it could be a proposal claim because he states how Bosch basically states that they should not invest the technology as being standard.

Personal Injury Lawyers – “Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.” This consequential claim stated by the Schmidt Firm informs readers about the number of injuries that occur from average unsafe table saws. All of which could be prevented by the use of SawStop.

Government Officials – “California legislators are trying to pass a law that would require all table saws sold after January 1, 2015 to have flesh-sensing safety technology. Proponents say the law would prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs to society.” This is a proposal claim that states how having a law requiring safety on saws would in fact benefit society by preventing a lot of injuries and that we should do it.

News Reporters – NPR’s reporter Chris Arnold talks about what SawStop is and how the idea came about to its inventor, Gass. “Gass’ saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. Within a few thousandths of a second, the blade slammed to a stop.” This is a definitional claim the introduces the listeners of NPR about what the product is and what its intentional use is.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A04: Safer Saws, Mike Middleton. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Saws Part II – Mike Middleton

  1. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Mike. I hope I can help.

    Manufacturers. I agree this is an evaluation claim but it’s hard to see what it proposes. You might mean that the manufacturers propose that they not be required to outfit their saws with new safety equipment, but wow that’s a stretch from these three words. I like very much that you recognize they aren’t passing judgment on the value of SawStop. That’s an excellent observation. (You can’t say “reason is because” though. Check the Grammar Minimum Requirements on that one.) And make your language much more specific. Nobody will understand what “do this” or “very bad impact” on the “future of saws” will mean.

    While the company seems to acknowledge that SawStop provides safety, their claim is that buyers won’t spend much for it.

    OK?

    Customers. Yes, it’s an evaluation claim, Mike. I never doubt that you understand what’s going on. But you don’t seem to be able to adopt specific language to explain yourself. “States his opinion about SawStop” has no meaning whatsoever. And “why he feels that it is a good invention” is equally meaningless. In the first case, readers ask: Oh? and what is his opinion? In the second, they ask: Oh? and why does he feel it’s good? What you mean, I think, is: In his evaluation, Lopez claims safety in his shop is critical, both for himself and his workers, and apparently worth the cost.

    Industry. I agree with your analysis, but what does the kickback argument have to do with SawStop? You don’t say one way or the other whether it will prevent kickbacks.

    Safety. I agree the claim identifies long term financial benefits of safer saws. But is it persuasive? Consumers will of course pay more for the saws. Only the unfortunate who have accidents currently get hit with big expenses. The claim says consumers won’t pay more because society will pay less. Does that make sense?

    Plaintiffs. The reason you can’t identify the claim is that you’ve related about six claims, Mike. There is certainly a consequence claim in here, that the failure to outfit the saw with a safety device caused the injury. Bosch may be making a proposal claim, but the author of the quote certainly isn’t.

    Lawyers. Yep. Consequence claim: saws cause injuries. You yourself make several other claims. You call table saws unsafe. You claim SawStop could prevent injuries. The lawyers claim neither in this brief quote.

    Government. The “proponents” make a consequence claim: the law would prevent injuries and costs. The legislators make a proposal claim: We need this regulation.

    Reporters. Nice.

    I don’t want to badger you, Mike, but even when you’re going strong, your own claims are often very soft. “Chris Arnold talks about what SawStop is” and “how the idea came about” are examples. NPR’s reporter Chris Arnold introduces listeners to the SawStop safety system, invented by Steve Gass.

    As always, I’d like to know if you found any of this helpful. Thanks.

  2. davidbdale says:

    Disappointed to see no revisions.

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