Safer Saws – Alivewit55

Posted on October 9, 2015 by alivewit55
  1. Injured Plaintiffs- A) 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. B) Wec is claiming that Bosch could have applied the safer saws to their tools, which would have prevented him from ever being hurt. C) It is a causal claim. D) This claim states that Wec’s injury was permanent and traumatic, but it could have been prevented. The statement is true if Bosch bought into the safer technology and applied it to their instruments. Instead of buying into the new technology, Bosch and their competitors fought hard against it, so the safer technology would not be required.
  2. Personal Injury Lawyers- A) Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. B) The claim made here is that there are 40,000+ table saw injuries each year resulting in 4,000+ amputations, which are staggering numbers. C) The claim here is a simple factual claim. D) There is no evidence supporting the claim made that there is 40,000+ injuries from table saws each year. However, regardless of there being evidence or not, it is very powerful to see how large the number of injuries actually is, which in itself is powerful enough to get people’s attention.
  3. News Reporters- A) In the eight years that the Power Tool Industry (PTI) has been opposing automatic safety technology for table saws, an estimated 320,000 serious table saw injuries have occurred, including 32,000 amputations. B) The PTI has been delaying the process of adding additional safety measures to their products for so long that over a quarter of a million table saw injuries have taken place. C) This is a factual claim. D) The claim states that it has been eight years since the topic of additional safety measures had taken place and in that time over 320,000 serious injuries happened. Countless individual injuries could have been prevented had the PTI just come to an agreement to make all table saws have an automatic stopping device.
  4. Manufacturers- A) Unlike SawStop, the Reaxx doesn’t break the blade. Instead, a piston release drops the blade and pushes it out of the way before it can cause serious injury. B) Bosch developed their own model of automatic braking system but not without taking a jab at the company that pressured the industry for so long to include their device, SawStop. C) The claim made here is an attacking claim. D) Instead of just saying that their (Bosch) device doesn’t break the blade after it is stopped, they include the rival manufacturer SawStop and how they do the same thing but their device destroys the blade. I am not sure if it is necessary to attack a smaller company that is in the same market a you, but Bosch felt that SawStop was a big enough threat that they had to one-up it in order to beat it in the market.
This entry was posted in You Forgot to Categorize!. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s