Safer Saws-toastedflatbread

  1. Manufacturers: “it will stop it so quickly that you just get a little nick”-This quotation convinces the audience that the invention will protect you from being seriously injured. It uses words such as “so”, “just”, and “little” to elaborate on how it will prevent harm. It tells the audience that they can trust the machine to save them from amputation, and tries to convince them that even if they get nicked, it is better than the alternative. This is a causal claim because it is stating that the safety addition will result in protected, happy customers. 
  2. Customers: “That sounded like a good kind of saw to me”-This quote comes from a potential customer and expresses his feelings on the idea of a safer saw. This suggests that the person had positive feelings towards the idea, at least initially. “Good kind” is vague wording, so it is difficult to understand what the customer qualifies as being “good”..probably something that will not amputate a finger. The words “to me” make the statement personal and it is unclear if other customers feel the same way. This claim is opinionated, but still provides a good example of how this customer feels about the product. It is an evaluative claim because it examines the feelings toward the idea and associates the idea with success.
  3. Industry Spokespeople: “Bosch lobbied”-These words explain that the saw-making company, Bosch, worked to ensure that something would not occur. The word “lobbied” suggests that this is something that Bosch has strong feelings for. It holds some negative connotation, which leads readers to believe that Bosch was acting suspiciously. It also suggests that there is a reason for this action. I believe this is an ethical claim because it leads readers to believe that something ethically wrong occurred, no matter the reason behind it and that the company needs to answer for its actions.
  4. Consumer Safety Advocates:  “proposed rulemaking”-This section of the quote explains how there are suggestions to put guidelines on the saw-making manufacturers. The word “rulemaking” suggests that guidelines should be enforced in order for everything to run smoothly. The word “proposed” suggests that this is a work in progress and alludes to the fact that the subject was not functioning as it should. These two words successfully tell readers that there is an effort to change something that should be better regulated, and for that, this is an evaluative claim. It is arguing that action needs to be taken to ensure that organization is followed and rules are met.
  5. Injured Plaintiffs: “technology could have prevented his 2007 injury”-This quote claims that the subject experienced an injury that could have been avoided with correct care. The quote suggests that the machine used was not equipped with the necessary features to keep its users safe. It claims that the injury was caused by a lack of thoughtfulness and comes across as spiteful (rightly so in my opinion). This is an evaluative claim because it examines the plaintiff’s situation and rules that it was unjust.
  6. Personal Injury Lawyers: “more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”- This claim explains that this certain saw is very dangerous and is causing considerable harm to its users. Strong comparative language is used in this statement-the words “more” and “any ” prove that this subject is greater at something (in this case something negative) than other subjects. This type of language is a persuasive call-to-action to fix the issues and ensure that no other injuries occur. This is a comparative claim because it differentiates between the dangers of typical saws to this specific one.
  7. Government Officials: “preventable injuries were unacceptable”-This claim comes from a chairman who is expressing his opinion on the unjust results of under-inspected table saws. The claim uses the word “preventable” to add emphasis to the negativity felt about the injuries. It suggests that the injuries had no reason or right to occur, but happened due to laziness. The word “unacceptable” furthers the intensity of this statement by using strong negative language. This is an ethical claim because it uses emotional words to impact the readers and try to convince them to feel similarly. It is successful in bringing out emotions and creating a reaction
  8. News Reporters: “it saves a finger but mangles the machine”-This comes from a reporter who observed the machine and evaluated its pros and cons. This statement has both positive and negative connotations-it suggests that it protects humans but at the cost of the machine. Just the word “but” suggests that the reporter believes that the system is flawed in some ways. This is a causal claim because it states that in order to protect the finger, the machine must suffer. It does a good job of illustrating the benefits and downfalls of the invention.
This entry was posted in Safer Saws FA21, toastedflatbread. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Safer Saws-toastedflatbread

  1. davidbdale says:

    These are brilliant, Flatbread. You found several ways to tease all the meanings out of very small claims. Excellent.

    Like

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