Safer Saws – SpookyGhost

  1. “home woodworker invented an ingenious device that stops a table saw blade within 4/1000ths of a second of contact with human flesh”. Claims that the device does indeed work and stops the blade almost instantly upon contact with flesh. This is an evaluative claim because it evaluates the effectiveness of this device, and is being supported by the inventor. The claim is reasonable but hard to visually prove without risk of injury. In order for companies to actually buy into the claim there should be should be some sort of safe test preformed with results rather than just a statement that it works.
  2. “to date, none of his thousands of customers has suffered an amputation or serious injury from blade contact”. This claims that Gass’s device has worked for the 1000s of people that bought into it after he put it on the marketplace. At first this sounds great but of the 1000s of people that bought into it, how many of them actually got themselves into a situation in which the device saved them? That statistic would be far more helpful then the given statistic. This is a Quantitative claim because it states a number of people that bought the product and how that number of people did not get injured.
  3. “it is similar to seat belts or air bags in its effectiveness at eliminating serious bodily harm”. This devices effectiveness to safe people is matched up with the effectiveness of seat belts and airbags. This analogy claim compares the device to seat belts and airbags in effectiveness, but shows no proof that it actually is as effective. The reader still lacks any proof to this claim.
  4. “injuries are negative in themselves; they cause downtime; they cause increases in worker compensation insurance premiums; they harm the shops reputation” This is a factual claim. It lists the effects an injury in the workplace and why it would be crucial for companies to get their hands on this device to make safer saws. This claim is effective because no matter what the numbers say about the device it makes an undeniably claim that any extra safety in the workplace would help.
  5. “Self-employed craftsmen are more likely to consider any attempt to regulate saw safety as needless government intervention, and saw manufacturers object that the increased cost to produce safer saws, plus the royalty they’ll have to pay to Steve Gass, will double the cost of cheap hobbyist saws that sell in the $100-200” This is a casual claim as it predicts statistics about the price and who would consider buying it needless of government intervention. This claim effectively places a scope for who would buy it but fails to state why this group would buy it.
  6. “Meanwhile, a miter saw user recently won a large settlement from sawmaker Bosch by arguing that the manufacturer had failed to employ available safety technology that would have prevented his injury. Whatever the merits of his case, sawmakers now fear this first case will multiply out of control. They hope alternatives like better and more acceptable (less likely to be disabled or discarded by users) safety guards will satisfy the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s warnings that regulation is being considered.” This is an evaluative claim because of the evaluation of the situation at hand, and the effects it will have on the future. This claim is effective because not only does it give the reader an example to work with, it makes a clear argument on why the example will effect decision making when choosing whether or not to buy into a safer saw.
This entry was posted in Safer Saws FA21. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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