Safer Saw-breadpatrol99

1.

A.Injured Plaintiffs-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.

B. An injured man claimed that “flesh detection and braking technology” was kept from miter saw requirements.

C. First- This would be a factual claim, because this had turned out to be truthful, a “fact”.

D. As far as I am concerned, this claim is completely reasonable because Robert Boschs Tool Corps refusal to introduce any type of safety measure would make it seem as if they were purposely keeping it off. However, the logic and accuracy of this claim may be contested given it seems like mere speculation, reasonable speculation, yet still speculation.

2

A. Consumer Safety Advocates-The primary technology used by the majority of table saw manufacturers to prevent table saw injuries is a plastic blade guard.  This technology has remained essentially the same for over 50 years.  Yet, blade guards have proved to be ineffective in reducing the 40,000 serious table saw injuries that occur every year.

B. The first claim is that the main technology used in preventing table saw injuries is a plastic blade guard.

The second claim is that this technology hasn’t changed much for over 50 years.

The third claim is that said plastic blade guards have been prove to be ineffective in reducing table saw injuries.

C. The first claim is factual; it is a fact that this is the main form of table saw protection.

The second claim is factual again, stating a fact that safe guards haven’t changed much in the last half a century.

The third claim, again, is factual because it is simply stating a fact of injury rates.

(all of these claims being factual may be because of the nature of the website)

D. The first claim is accurate because it is factual, as it is reasonable and logical as well given the nature of the claim. The second claim is reasonable when considering the progression of the average table saw, however, the accuracy may be up to debate as I imagine not every table saw manufacturer was consulted for this study. The third claim is certainly reasonable after knowing how much I do about table saws from the class, yet the quality is up to question in my opinion because it just seems to be making the claim, regardless of how true it seems.

3

A. Industry Spokespeople-The Power Tool Institute, an industry group that represents Black & Decker and Bosch, said that the price of their table saws with the safety devices would “increase dramatically,” eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.

B. The first claim is that these safety devices would make the production of their products dramatically higher.

The second claim is that the implementation of the new safety requirements would give them an unfair market standing in comparison to SafetySaws.

This entry was posted in breadpatrol99, E07: Safer Saws Claims. Bookmark the permalink.

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 )

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