Safer Saws – gemfhi

Posted on October 9, 2015 by NSLincoln

8A. A news reporter named, Bridget Freeland, makes claims about what an injured worker, apparently named Wec, has said about his employers and the reasons for his injury. A sample being:

“Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch [the employer] and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

8B. There are many claims being made in this statement and they are all, sort of, ‘sub-claims’ to the overall claim that the reporter is making which is that Wec even said any of these other claims in the first place. Here the claims are listed and simplified a bit…

  1. The overall claim that the reporter makes that the man is named Wec and that he made the claims he made, is the first claim.
  2. Wec claims he has an injury
    1. He claims his injury is traumatic
    2. He claims his injury is permanent
  3. He claims the injury could have been prevented.
    1. He claims it could have been prevented specifically and only if his employer and its competitors did not reject and fight against the technology.
      1.  Claims that the employer and its competitors share the same disposition about the saws.
      2. This also claims that his employer rejected the technology, this means that (the reporter claims that) Wec is claiming that his employer deemed the hardware not satisfactory to the standards that they set themselves. That is what it means to reject.
      3. He also claims that they “fought against” the technology.
        1. This could insinuate that the employer and their competitors not only rejected but also actively put effort into eliminating the general use of the technology.
        2. It cold also suggest that the employer put effort into the prevention of such a product even being manufactured in the first place.
This entry was posted in You Forgot to Categorize!. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Safer Saws – gemfhi

  1. Sunny says:
    February 10, 2018 at 12:22 pm

    Hello Dave, what a strange website you have here. It is interesting that you are a teacher that does not know proper comma placement. Oh well, I suppose that is our education system today. For example: “A news reporter named, Bridget Freeland, makes claims about what an injured worker, apparently named Wec, has said about his employers and the reasons for his injury.” There is no comma either required or offered as a casual option before and after the reporter’s name. Secondly, you are making claims against a reporter stating that the writer of a news report actually made “claims.” This is not true. The reporter reported objectively (using phrases such as the plaintiff “says”) on the claims that the plaintiff had made. This even includes actually quoting the lawsuit directly to avoid any expression of bias towards either party involved. If such a reporter made bias claims in a news story, they would be subject to a lawsuit of their own. With that said, you may want to change the way that you write up your summaries because one would be able to swiftly prove in a court of law that what you have stated about the reporter is completely false and disparaging.

    Like

    Reply
    • davidbdale says:
      February 11, 2018 at 3:18 pm

      Thanks, Sunny. Your comments, if they were accurate in any way, would be most welcome.

      What you’re responding to is not my work but an answer given by a student to an in-class exercise during his first introduction to the broad nature of claims. He certainly made mistakes. Oh, well. I guess that’s the nature of our education system.

      What you say about a reporter’s liability is certainly correct. If it were relevant, I’d be thanking you for it. Next time you try to fix the world, pay more attention first.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment