A. Ryszard Wec, a Bosch customer, was quoted at his court case saying that “his permanent and ‘traumatic injury’ could have been prevented if Bosch and it’s competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”
B. There are several claims in this quote.
- His injury was permanent and traumatic.
- His injury could have been prevented.
- The company rejected and fought against this safety technology.
- If they had not rejected and fought against this technology, his injury could have been prevented.
C. Each of the claims made above can be identified differently.
- The first claim is factual, as a saw injury has the potential to be incredibly traumatic and, should an appendage be take off, most definitely permanent.
- The second claim that his injury could have been prevented is casual, assuming there was no other way this man could have hurt himself.
- This claim is factual, the companies did not adopt this technology for their products.
- This claim is consequential. In this context, his injury could have been avoided if the companies had not fought against the new technology.
D. The first claim is strong, and puts an urgency behind the need for safety technology. The second claim isn’t reliable, there are a numerous amount of ways a person can hurt themselves, especially with a saw, so there is no real way of knowing for a fact that this man’s injury could have been prevented. The next claim is similar to the first, in that there is evidence that the companies did indeed refuse this technology. The final claim is reaching a bit. While the injury was indeed caused by a Bosch saw, once again there is no way to prove that the injury would have happened regardless of the new technology.