1. “The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.”
The consequential claim states that if the technology had to be implemented, the consumer will have to pay. In this way, they are making a persuasive claim aimed at the penny pinching woodworker who has faith in his own ability to be a safe saw user and would rather not pay the extra fees.
2. “How much are fingers worth now days. If I had the money I would go Saw stop in a New York Minuet even though my Powermatic has been a great saw for years.”
Regardless of this internet users poor grammar, his evaluation claim is relatively valid. questioning how much people value their own safety is a valid way of influencing peoples opinions of the SawStop technology.
3. “A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)”
This consequential claim is effective due to the simplicity, and non arguable fact that they provide. It will cost consumers every time there is an accidental misfire.
4. “And just like airbags and seat belts, the safest way to operate a table saw is to have both an automatic safety device AND a blade guard.”
This resemblance claim is incredibly effective because it is simple and powerful so as to reach massive understanding with the most amount of people. Some of the most powerful statements are the simple ones.
5. “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.”
The Proposal Claim made by this injured plaintiff is accusing Robert Bosch Tool Corp of essentially consorting with his competitors in order to keep the “flesh detection and braking technology” off of the market. It is the type of argument that makes readers begin to be more ‘suspicious’ of the tool industry.
6. ” Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”
The consequential claim made is a pretty bold statement to make, in terms of BIG claims. It is not effective in its segmented form, because there are no facts to back it up. Alone, bold statements such as this do not cause much power because they come off as more statement than fact, but add a little factual evidence and it can transform your argument from an emotional spout of opinions, to a put together intellectual claim.
7. “Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”
This is a claim that is hard to pin point, but would be best described as an evaluation claim. The quote states that despite urging for change, no progress occurred. This is as much a poignant statement, as it is just simple filler for this document. One could simply “urge” anyone to do anything, whether it is right or wrong, but it does not mean that they will actually follow the suggestion. By stating that an urge was made, it means that the ones in question were asked, and ignored the plea by the defendant.
8. ” 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.”
The consequential claim is using the IF a table saw is sold after January 1, 2015, THEN it must have flesh-sensing technology. The always progressive California strikes again, mandating that flesh-sensing technology be a part of any Saw made after January 1, 2015, it gives any reader the understanding that not only are some government officials getting it right, but that California in general is continuing to strive for the best for their citizens.