5A. “Wec says his permanent and ‘traumatic injury’ could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”
5B. Wec, an injured plaintiff, was quoted in saying he could have avoided injury from a miter saw if the companies had accepted the safer technology.
5C. The type of claim being made is a causal (or consequential?) claim. It essentially states that Bosch’s and other companies’ decision caused Wec’s injury.
5D. The claim that it is Bosch’s and its competitors’ fault for Wec’s injury can be accurate based on the point of view. Those on Wec’s side will agree that it was the company’s fault. Those on the company’s side will say they had other factors in mind that influenced their decision of not accepting the technology. The logic makes sense with each of the point of views of the situation. I believe that Wec is not at fault for his injury because of the companies’ poor decision.
8A. “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws.”
8B. A news reporter states that a number of people are injured all of the time using a power tool.
8C. The type of claim being made is purely factual. The writer states a statistical fact.
8D. This factual claim can only be accurate if the fact suggested is true. Based on the source where this claim came from, we can infer that it is true. It’s a reasonable claim, since there are so many people who use power tools. Plus, the fact that the claim says “every year” supports the evidence because it is vague. A lot of things can happen in a year, like thousands of injuries.
3A. “The PTI argues: The requirement would be too costly.”
3B. The Power Tool Industry claims that the requirement of automatic safety technology would be too expensive for consumers.
3C. The type of claim made here is factual. The PTI states that the cost of the technology is too expensive.
3D. This claim is weak. Even though there isn’t a lot of room for evidence in a single claim, there is not any logic explained to back this idea up. It is indeed accurate, though. New technology costs a lot of money, which does not benefit consumers in their expenses.
3E. Just because safety costs a lot of money doesn’t mean it should be rejected. The PTI is ignoring the fact that safety comes at a high value and consumers will be willing to pay for their safety if it means they can avoid injuries.
Consumer Safety Advocates
4A. “According to the most recent CPSC injury report, in approximately two-thirds of table saw injuries, the guard had been removed.”
4B. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, claims that in two-thirds of injuries with a table saw, consumers had removed the plastic blade guard. The plastic blade guard is the basic technology used by most companies to prevent injuries, but it must be removed to perform some basic tasks.
4C. This is a factual and a consequential claim. The CPSC states a statistic, which then makes the suggestion that the guard is a nuisance to consumers, which results in its removal, which then results in injuries.
4D. The claim is accurate and logical. There is not actual evidence in this claim to support the fact stated, but the amount of injuries that occurred after the blade had been removed is significant. We can infer that the removal of the blade results in injuries, which persuades the reader that the blade is an insufficient form of technology, and something more sufficient must be implemented.
7A. “According to Dr. John D. Graham, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President George W. Bush, an average table saw equipped with an automatic safety system will deliver $753 in benefits due to reduced injuries.”
7B. Dr. John D. Graham, a government official, claims a table saw with the safety system will deliver a large benefit because there will be less injuries.
7C. This is a causal claim. The automatic safety system will cause less injuries, which causes a great benefit.
7D. This claim is substantial and accurate because there is evidence that supports the suggestion. The amount of money that will be received in benefits is proof that the automatic safety system is favorable. The “reduced injuries” is also proof that the system is profitable.
2A. “In addition, safety should not be available to only those who can afford it. ”
2B. Safety should be available to all customers, even if they are not rich.
2C. This is a claim of policy. It is a suggestion to prevent injuries from happening to customers.
2D. The claim is strong and logical because it plainly states the fairness of having safety. Of course safety should be attainable for everyone. We know and understand this because of the syntax of the claim; it discredits people who can afford it and advocates for those who cannot.
Personal Injury Lawyers
6A. “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place.”
6B. Manufacturers are being sued by people injured from their products that lacked SawStop or other safety systems.
6C. This is an inferential claim. Manufacturers are being sued because they failed to implement safety systems that could have prevented peoples’ injuries.
6D. The claim is accurate. If the manufacturers of table saws would have used SawStop or a similar type of safety mechanism, less people would have been injured, meaning manufacturers would not be facing numerous lawsuits.
1A. “To our knowledge no manufacturer is anxious to pay SawStop an 8% license fee for this technology anytime soon, especially when the manufacturing for the technology alone will increase the average price of a table saw by anywhere from $150-$200 by the time it hits the shelves.”
First claim: Manufacturers don’t want to pay a fee for the technology to SawStop.
Second claim: The price of manufacturing will increase by a lot.
1C. The first claim is an inferential claim. The second claim is a factual claim.
1D. The first claim is strong and persuasive because it infers from manufacturers’ business values and ideas that they will not want to share their money. It suggests that manufacturers are greedy, which is a strong argument. The second claim, although there is not evidence that the prices will increase, is strong as well. It suggests again that manufacturers are greedy, since the increase of prices might mean less people will buy the product.