7. Government Officials
- 7a. “Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.”
- The quote is saying that in the years 2007 and 2008 alone there were 67,300 injured from blade contact and that the costs from the injuries were at $2.36 billion dollars.
- The first claim is factual. It is stating that 67,300 were injured in the years 2007 and 2008.
- The second claim is a factual claim. The claim states that the expenses from the injuries were up to $2.36 billion dollars.
- The first claim is supported by data that obtained from a creditable source. It is logical to process because of the high risks that come from working with table saws.
- The second claim is also supported through accurate special studies. It is logical to process the amount it would cost for injury due to hospital bills and the expenses after the hospital visit.
- 3Industry Spokespeople
3a. “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.”
3b. The quote is talking about the expenses that the company would have to spend in order to implement the technology. They’re stating that with the new saw stop it would cost more to produce thus costing more money for the person buying the saw.
3c. This claim is factual
3d. The claim is logical. Most companies are always looking for ways to keep production costs down and with this new technology it is doing the exact opposite.
3e. although it would cost more, the simple addition of $100 is nothing compared to the money that the companies will not have to pay in lawsuits. When customers go and buy the saws they’ll understand that the initial cost is more but overtime and no trips to the hospital will be worth it.