Counterintuitive Spring 2023

A06: White Paper-palal24

Why Self Control Is Not A Predetermined Trait

Practice Opening 1

Self control is one of the most important traits that a person can possess in order to be successful in life.  Imagine if you were confronted with the choice of going to a party or studying for a chemistry exam.  You know that sacrificing your time to study and do well on the exam will go far in improving your chances for good grades, while partying may be fun in the short term but will do nothing to achieve your goals to get into medical school.  Flash forward to medical school, were every day including weekends is a never ending repeat of sleep, study, eat and more study.  During this time, you watch your friends sleep late, go out, have fun.  You are aware, however, that the delaying gratification will result in a successful, respected career that fulfills you because  it is ultimately your passion.  Anything less would be a huge disappointment and you are focused on your goal.   Doctors are masters at self control and delayed gratification; they could not become physicians without possessing these traits.  Now imagine that there is a study that demonstrates that the traits of self control are evident as young as preschool, and that those children showing those traits are proven to be more successful adults than those not having those traits.  For a period of time, social scientists believed that self control and delayed gratification were predetermined traits.  Now imagine that a new study indicates the traits of self control and delayed gratification can be taught by improving the perception of trust in the outcome.  This paper will analyze the ways in which experiences and environmental impact affects a person’s ability to self control, and ways we can use this knowledge to increase societal trustworthiness.

Practice Opening 2

Children unlucky enough to be born into poverty, or with absent fathers, have been proven to be less successful in life because they lack the ability to delay gratification.  They almost always chose to grab what they can immediately, and not postpone gratification in the hopes of getting more.  This lack of self control leads to juvenile delinquency, poor performance in school, and lack of economic opportunities.  However, there is a study done by University of Rochester professors that challenge the inevitability of failure by this subset of children.  The study indicates that the reason the children lack self control is not because of lack of unitary trait needed to succeed, but because of the lack of trust in the outcome of waiting.  The study suggests that if societal trust is established in these children, they are more likely to learn self control and thus more likely to use desirable traits such as self control to succeed in life.  This paper will analyze the hypothesize that self control is a situational trait that is determined through experiences and environmental impact, rather than a predetermined trait.  Early interventions of at risk children (homeless, fatherless) could affect their ability to delay gratification.

The Marshmallow Study

For my research essay, I will be analyzing whether a person’s ability to exhibit self control and delayed gratification is a result of experiences and environmental impact, rather than being a predetermined trait.  Is self control a unitary quality, or is delayed gratification a situational trait?  A very famous study (Marshmallow Study) by Stanford Professor Walter Mischel demonstrated that when preschool children were able to delay gratification by waiting to eat a treat, they grew up to be more successful adults than those children who did not have that level of self control.  In this study, done in the 1960’s, Mischel gave the children a treat (a marshmallow, a cookie, a pretzel) and told the children that if they could wait 15 minutes to eat it, they would get an extra treat.  After following the children to adulthood, researchers discovered that those children who demonstrated self control were healthier, had more success, and better grades than those children who immediately ate the treat.  Psychologists and social scientists realized that emotional  intelligence and self control were more important to life success than IQ intelligence.

The Marshmallow Study Revisited

However, a new study by Celeste Kidd of the University of Rochester seems to challenge the assumption that exhibiting self control is a predetermined trait that leads to success.  In her study, she found that trust and confidence in the results of waiting to receive the reward plays a significant role in a person’s ability to delay gratification.  The children tested were able to make rational decisions on the probability of reward based on trust.  Celeste Kidd was able to manipulate the degree of delayed gratification by introducing reliable and unreliable variables to their experiment.    In several other studies I have researched, it becomes apparent to me that there has to be social trust (trust in people delivering future rewards as promised) in order for people to be willing to delay gratification in order to achieve a goal.  There are also studies that indicate when a child has an absent father, or is homeless, there is a greater probability of a lack of self control.

Exactly How Does the Environment Affect Self Control

For several years, social scientists believed that self control was a predetermined trait, and that those children and adults possessing the trait led better, healthier and more successful lives.  Celeste Kidd, a researcher at the University of Rochester, studied children who were homeless.  She hypothesized that children coming from a poverty stricken environment were more likely to exhibit a lack of self control than their more fortunate counterparts.  She decided to challenge the assumption that self control was an innate trait, and conducted her own version of the Marshmallow Study.  Her conclusions were that children with absent fathers and homeless children had a lack of self control caused by their environment.  They had the least amount of trust in the outcome because these children live in an unreliable world.  To test her hypothesize, she created two groups, one with reliable experiences, and one with unreliable experiences.  If a person made a promise and then delivered, the child was more likely to wait and have the capability to wait.  If a person made a promise and broke it, the child had no reason to trust the environment and ate the marshmallow immediately.  The effects of the environment were almost instantaneous.

Can Self Control Be Taught?

There is no argument that the ability to delay gratification is critical for life success.  If everyone just did whatever they felt like doing, most people would not go to work, they would not do homework, and they would lack the self control necessary to provide for themselves and others.  Stanford University published 40 years worth of research into how people can be taught self control.  They believe there are four main ways to teach self control, and that self control is not an innate trait, but is influenced by life experiences and environment.

Social Trust Is Instrumental in Learning Self Control

People are less willing to wait for rewards if they are in an environment that lacks social trust.  The question to be answered is whether early interventions of at-risk children (homeless, fatherless) and how providing trust and confidence will affect their ability to delay gratification.  Social trustworthiness could improve behavior, and address juvenile crime and drug addiction in this population.  Study after study indicates that participants are less willing to wait for rewards in people they deem untrustworthy.

Physiological Causes of Impulsiveness and Self Control

There are actual physical causes of whether or not a person has good self control naturally.  Scientists have tracked brain waves in different people, and those who demonstrate good self control have significantly different patterns than those who do not.  Scientists call this a “hot or cold” cognitive system.  The hot system is impulsive and emotional.  The cold system is cognitive in nature and reflective.  People more prone to hot emotional triggers struggle with self control.  It is fascinating that there is a neurological basis for the ability to delay gratification, and scientists are discovering strategies for people with naturally hot cognitive systems to cool down.

Working Hypothesis 1:

Self control is not an innate trait, and can be influenced by environment and experiences.  This paper will analyze the ways in which experiences and environmental impact affects a person’s ability to self control, and ways we can use this knowledge to increase societal trustworthiness.

Working Hypothesis 2:

When a child has an absent father, or is homeless, there is a greater probability of a lack of self control.

Topics for Smaller Papers

IQ Intelligence vs. Self Control and Patience

Which would you choose?  Being a natural genius but limited emotional intelligence, or having advanced emotional intelligence with a normal IQ?

A Hot/Cool Analysis and Delayed Gratification

This would be a more in-depth look at understanding the two different cognitive systems, and how they impact self control.

Current State of the Research Paper

I believe that self control is not an unitary trait and can be learned.  Studies have demonstrated without a doubt that environment and lack of trust play an important role in whether or not a person can delay gratification.  Since self control is a critical skill for health, success and a happy life, it is important that people learn and be taught these skills as early as preschool.  In at risk populations such as the homeless, it is even more vital to have early intervention to increase societal trust.  Perhaps saving even a percentage of these children from crime, drugs and poverty is worth the time and money invested.

I think the paper has been outlined, and I may add more as I continue my research in the following areas:

1. How Societal Trust is currently being implemented in at risk communities.
2. Strategies that are used in learning self control skills.
3. Juvenile crime and the effects of environment, and possible solutions.
4. Physiological reasons behind hot and cool cognitions.

As a college student, it is fascinating to me how many instances I see of self-control (and the lack of it) on campus.

Texting and Driving Prevention

0:01 We see a black small car driving through what might seem to be a development. They are driving towards the camera. We see some trees and a mailbox which indicates that maybe this is a development. We can’t quiet make out the brand of the car nor can we see the license plate or where the person who is driving is from. The car doesn’t seem to be new but it also doesn’t look beat up or destroyed. It is daytime and looks to be sunny.

00:2 The camera zooms in as the car continues to drive closer to the camera. Now we can kind of make out the license plate number. We can make out a pink house in the background so it is now confirmed that this is indeed a neighborhood or development. The window is rolled down on the driver’s side so that also confirms it is a nice day or nice enough to have the windows down. We cannot see the driver of the vehicle yet.

00:03 Now we see inside the car and we see a female. Blonde curly hair. Wearing a pink shirt and a necklace. Seems to be old enough to drive but still a teen. Maybe 19 or 18. She is also wearing her seatbelt. She has both hands on the wheel. Again in the background we see another pink house and a car with no one in it. Most likely a parked car outside of the house. Her eyes are on the road which is another good sign. So far nothing looks out of place in this scene. Judging by the length of the video, it seems to be a commercial of some sort.

00:04 We can see she is still driving because the outside of the car is moving. We start to notice her eyes glancing down as if something maybe caught her attention. She is then no longer paying attention to the road. She is still buckled with both hands on the wheel.

00:05 Now the scene shows a picture of a phone. It says “New Text Message” with a blue background and a picture of a letter on the phone. Perhaps this is what she was looking down at?

00:06 Still shows the picture of the phone. Not much different from 00:05

00:07 It then zooms back in on the girl. Except this angle is different, it’s the camera facing up at her as if the camera was her phone and the girl was looking at her phone. She is clearly not paying attention to the road. We can only see her arm on the wheel and her face in this scene.

00:08 In this scene we see her look up at the road and then quickly look back down at the phone. Her arm has also moved. We can’t see where she moved it in this scene we just see it moved.

00:09 The angle has changed and now we see the full back of the phone. The phone is pink. There seems to be a lot of pink going on in this commercial. Though the camera is now focused on the phone and the girl is blurry in the background, we can see the girl is still looking at the phone. The phone seems to be a smart phone. It is not a flip phone.

00:10 The camera is still focused on the phone but we can now see that the girl is reaching for the phone. She grabs the phone assuming to pick it up and read the text message.

00:11 The Camera goes back up to the girls face. We see that she is still looking down slightly towards the area in which the phone was sitting and still no longer paying attention to the road.

00:12 This scene is similar to the last scene except this time we can see that the girl is starting to smile.

00:13 We see she is laughing a little more. The girl might be reading something funny or perhaps looking at a funny picture that someone sent her.

00:14 The screen goes black

00:15 The screen come back to the girl texting on her phone. We see the message screen and the keyboard. She is clicking a button at the bottom left. Doesn’t look like she is typing but perhaps forwarding a message or picture or possibly posting it to social media? By now I can state that it looks like a commercial for texting and driving.

00:16 The screen went black but then quickly goes to a view of the road. By the screen flashing back and forth between black and picture, I assume something bad is going to happen. We see a house on the left. She looks to be approaching a 4 way stop. We can faintly see a stop sign. It looks as though it got darker out. Perhaps from the trees, the car is in the shade?

00:17 This part is blurry we see the camera go black then come back to inside the car. We see pink so it might be her phone again. We also see a leg and the steering wheel.

00:18 The camera keeps going black and then coming back. This time the phone was brought up higher towards the steering wheel and she is still texting.

00:19 The camera goes back to the road in front of her. We see the 4 way stop now that she has approached it. Doesn’t look like there are any cars. We just see more trees and houses in front of us.

00:20 The camera zooms out and we see a side view of 2 cars. We see the girls dark colored car and someone else’s tan colored car. They are going different directions and look as if they are going to hit each other. We see the stop sign very vividly. If we go a little further in to the 20 second mark, we see the camera go back on her face and it looks as though she is screaming.

00:21 A black screen. Must mean something bad as happened if she was screaming and the cars looked like they were going to hit each other then it went black. Perhaps they did?

00:22 A message pops up and says, “Stop The Texts” The word “stop” is yellow and the rest is white. We also see a doted line underneath the words.

00:23 Underneath the word “Stop The Texts” another message pops up and says “Stop The Wrecks” Also with the word “stop” in yellow. By this saying I can confirm it was a texting and driving commercial.

00:24 Same view as 00:23 just moving closer to the camera.

00:25 The doted line stays but the words disappear.

00:26 Message pops up “How will you stop texting and driving?” “Tell us at stoptextsstopwrecks.org”

00:27- 00:30 Same message just clearer to read.

Working Opening

Rape victims are always raped twice. First they are physically raped, then they are raped emotionally by the justice system and society. After experiencing the devastation of rape, victims often confide in an authority in hopes that their grievance will be addressed and their attacker be punished. Instead of being relieved by the actions of the justice system, victims are shamed and blamed for being victims.

Working Opening

You got raped, it is your fault. What were you wearing? You were asking for it. Did you say no? Did you try and fight back? You know what they say, boys will be boys. Right? Wrong. Too often the victims are blamed for being the victims. We are instilling the youth with the idea that they shouldn’t be raped rather than teaching them not to rape. It is not the victims fault and we need to fix the stigma that it is.

Statistical Evidence of Unconstitutionality Towards Rape Victims

1 out of every 6 women In the United States have been victim to rape, attempted rape or aggravated assault in their lifetime. When it comes to males, 1 in every 33 may be victims of rape or attempted rape. This means that 9 out of every 10 rape victims are females. The male stigma of what constitutes rape has contributed to the fact that only 1 in every 16 rapists spend a night in jail. The problem is that we are blaming women for getting raped rather than men for raping.

Current State of Research Paper

Obviously it is still in the early stages. I am working towards developing thoughts and idea relevant to the topic I have chosen. I am finding it very difficult to focus on one specific area in my topic so eventually I plan on elaborating on smaller related topics within my paper. I am also really hoping I did this assignment correctly because I had a hard time with it.

E07:Safer Saws Claims – palal24

1. Manufacturers

1A.  The additional cost to manufacturers (to install the technology) is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.

1B.  One of the reasons manufacturers object to installing the sawstop technology is because of the added costs.

1C.  This is a cause and effect claim.  Installing the technology would cause an increase in price, which is then passed on to the consumer.

1D.  Manufacturers claim that installing technology that would help prevent injuries from table saws would increase the costs of manufacturing between $150-$200 per product.  They also claim that this cost would be passed on to the consumer.  Consumers would then need to decide whether safety outweighs the additional cost when purchasing a table saw.

1E.  Installing the sawstop technology would cause an increase in price to the  consumers due to the additional costs incurred.  On top of the installation costs, manufacturers must pay Sawstop an 8% licensing fee.  Until government regulation forces manufacturers to use Sawstop technology, they will continue to either develop their own safety technology or continue to produce table saws as usual.

2. Customers

2A.   Sawstop technology is available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.

2B.  Customers who rate safety over price will likely choose to pay more to prevent devastating injuries.

2C.  This is an inferential claim in that customers who prefer to keep their appendages will pay more for safety technology than those customers who are driven by price.

2D.  This is pure common sense.  If there is a safer way to use a table saw, but it costs more, then the consumer makes a choice based on priorities.  It is similar to purchasing an iron.  I can go to Best Buy and purchase the $100 iron that has steam guard technology and shuts off after a certain period of time, or I can purchase the $25 iron and risk an injury if I am careless, or cause a fire if I forget to turn the iron off when I leave the room.  It comes down to consumers making the best choice based on their priorities.

3. Industry Spokespeople

3A.  Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added costs, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers.

3B.  In capitalism, the marketplace determines which businesses fail and which businesses succeed.  Consumers decide in the marketplace whether to pay more for a table saw that has state of the art safety technology, or pay less for tables saws that do not have the technology.

3C.  This is a factual claim.  Consumers in the marketplace determine the success or failure of a business based on supply and demand in an economy based on capitalism principles.

3D.  The question here is should government legislate safety standards, and where does it draw the line?  Safety legislation is important, for example the FDA makes sure that drug manufacturers implement procedures that would not cause harm to consumers.  However, how involved should the government become in the table saw controversy?  There is no safety legislation for stupidity.  Wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle seems like a very good idea, and is legislated in many states.   In other states, however, wearing a helmet is a matter of choice.  I infer that those states that allow choice have a higher rate of injury or death from motorcycle riding.  That does not mean that I agree with government taking away my choice whether or not to wear a helmet.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4A.   There are estimates of 30,000 annual emergency room treated injuries involving table saws, with approximately 90% of the injuries occurring to the fingers and hands and 10% of the injuries involving amputation.

4B.   Table saw injuries are not uncommon and cause significant costs, both personal and business related.

4C.  This is a factual claim, based on hard data.  See below.  What is not known is how many injuries are caused through kickbacks (which Sawsafe technology does not prevent), or through user carelessness (such as removing a safety guard and not putting it back on the saw).

4D.  Adler, P. (February 2002). Data Report. Table Saw Related Iniuries And Fatalities (1991-2000). U.S. Consumer  Product Safety Commission: Bethesda, MD. Data report was cleared and presented to UL table saw working group on February 6,2002. (TAB C, Appendix C)

5. Injured Plaintiffs

5A.  In the Robert Bosch lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that Bosch actively lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission…to prevent the adoption of flesh detection systems as a safety standard on table saws.

5B.  Lobbyists in government…who would have thought?

5C.  This is factual, as industry spokespeople have made their objections to mandating Sawstop safety technology known.

5D.  The Bosch lawsuit came about under unfortunate circumstances in which a customer was injured using a table saw manufactured by Bosch.  Interestingly, Sawstop filed a $10 million lawsuit in February, 2014, claiming that big manufacturers joined forces to spurn the technology.  Therefore, Sawstop is now an “injured plaintiff”, although it is economic injury, not personal injury.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6A. Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it. Now, many people who have been injured are bringing table saw injury lawsuits against table saw manufacturers for failing to include the safety devices that would protect their customers from losing fingers, hands, arms, and suffering unfathomable pain.

                6B.  To paraphrase, there is money to be made!

6C.  Claim 1 is factual.  There are thousands of people severely injured every year.  Claim 2 is  arguable in that it has not been proven that almost all table saw injuries could be prevented, as other studies have shown that kickback causes many, if not most, of table saw injuries.  Claim 3 is factual as manufacturers have refused to adopt Sawstop technology.  Claim 4 is factual in that there are many table saw injury lawsuits involving failure to install safety devices.

6D.  Personal Injury Lawyers advertise widely and look to represent injured plaintiffs while collecting a significant portion of the award as their fee.    Their mission is to get money for their clients, of which they receive a percentage.  So it seems counterintuitive to believe that personal injury lawyers file lawsuits to prevent future injury, as it would reduce the number of clients filing lawsuits, and thus reduce potential revenue.

7. Government Officials

7A.  Many industry representatives believe that modification of consumer behavior through information and education campaigns could best address the hazard. Despite efforts by the table saw industry to educate consumers on the safe use of table saws, severe injuries continue to occur at a high cost to society and the victims.

7B.  Consumers cannot be adequately educated to protect themselves from table saw injuries.

7C.  Claim 1 is opinion.  Industry representatives believe that education and information can help reduce table saw injuries.  Claim 2 is factual as severe injuries continue to occur, despite consumer education.

7D.  This speaks again the consumer behavior, whether it is cautious and educated, or sloppy and dangerous as it pertains to the use of table saws.  The government’s perspective is that people need to be protected from themselves, instead of letting the marketplace dictate consumer choice.  I believe that safety legislation is necessary and vital in many different areas, but I am not sure how convinced I am that a patented safety technology for table saws should be mandated by law.

8. News Reporters

8A.  Stephen Gass – Guy Puts His Fingers Into An Active Blade and Keeps His Finger!

8B.  Social Media sells everything!  Is this entertainment?  Is it education?

8C.  Factual Claim…how do you dispute this video?

8D.  News reporters exist to entertain, educate and sway audiences (I can think of one news channel in particular who is competent at advancing a political agenda).  News reporters are powerful in that they can report fact, opinion, or a mixture of both.  In the case of Sawstop technology, there are news reporters who use social media to sensationalize, gather attention, market and educate.  There are also news reporters who closely follow pending government legislation, and there are news reporters who report strictly business related topics.  News reporters have remarkable influence on audiences, and depending upon the agenda, can tip opinion on a topic either way.  With the plethora of lawsuits, and the gruesomeness of the injuries, the societal cost of this issue makes this an attractive news story.  Some of the articles I have read, however, contain opinion based on the agenda of the news reporter.  For example, are they for or against government regulation?  Are they siding with industry spokespeople?  Are they marketing a product or service?  All of these questions and bit of skepticism serves me well when reading a news story about table saw safety.

9. Anti-Trust Lawyers/Patent Attorneys (extra credit!)

9A.  Sawstop, LLC, the world leader in table saw safety, today announced that it has filed complaints at the U.S. International Trade Commission and that U.S. District Court in Oregon against Robert Bosch GmbH of Germany and its subsidiary Robert Bosch Tool Corporation to stop infringement of Sawstop’s patented inventions.  coptool.com “Sawstop Sues Bosch Over REAXX Table Saw”.

9B.  On July 21, 2015, Sawstop initiated another lawsuit against Bosch.  The lawsuit claims Bosch is selling a table saw with safety technology that Sawstop claims infringes on its patent.

9C.  The claim is yet to be determined by the International Trade Commission.  However, there appears to be significant differences in how Bosch’s technology works versus Sawstop technology.  For example, Bosch uses an air bag instead of a mechanical block which saves the blade.  The blade is destroyed with Sawstop technology.

9D.  It is counterintuitive to me that Sawstop is fighting with another manufacturer who proposes to initiate better safety standards for table saws.  However, business is business, and if Sawstop truly believes there is a patent violation, then they are justified in filing a lawsuit.  It seems hypocritical to me to stop another manufacturer from enacting the same safety standards that Sawstop pleaded for so many years.  Maybe it is all about the money, Sawstop?

10. Safety Engineers (extra credit!)

9A.  The Sawstop will likely have a large impact on product liability cases involving table saws.  Often state or federal laws require plaintiffs to show a solution to a hazard in a product.  These solutions are sometimes patents showing technology that could have prevented a particular accident, sometimes it is alternate designs created by engineers that are based on engineering principles.

9B.  Safety engineers play a vital role in protecting companies from product liability cases.

9C.  Claim 1 is factual in cases where the plaintiff has to show a solution to a hazard in a product.  However, there are other table saw manufacturers that can make the same claim, using technology created by their safety engineers.  Claim 2 is also factual as laws can differ from place to place, but federal and state law can require showing a solution to a hazard.  Claim 3 is also factual as patents and or alternate designs can be a solution to a hazard.

9D.  Speaking again to the 2015 lawsuit that Sawstop initiated against Bosch, I can argue that Bosch has taken steps to increase table saw safety by engineering an alternate design to ensure that blade related injuries are mitigated.  Safety engineers are compensated well for creating a product that will reduce potential liability while increasing safety measures.

Manufacturer-
1A. “I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year. This inventor, a guy named Steve Gass, had actually figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents. Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.”
1B. Its claims that Gas has invented the safest table saws and are a lot safer than the table saws already out.
1C. This is a factual claim, Gas did make table saws safer.
1D. This claim is persuasive and accurate. Gas is getting people to want to buy this “safer” product.

Consumer Safety Advocates-
4A. “Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws. About 4,000 of those injuries – or more than 10 every day – are amputations”.
4B. About 40,000 Americans go to the hospital every year with injuries due to table saws. Around 4,000 of those injuries or more than 10 every day are amputations.
4C. This is a factual claim. It is stating the statistics of Americans getting hurt due to table saws. This is also a consequential claim since getting injured and an amputation is the consequence of the use of table saws.
4D. This claim about table saws injuring so many people is accurate and also persuasive.

Injured Plaintiffs-
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 is claiming that his permanent injury could have been prevented if Bocsh, the company of the power saw he bought had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.
5C. This is a casual claim since the company, Bocsh rejected safety technology which lead to cause his permanent injury.
5D. This claim is accurate, logical and persuasive. This injury could have never had happened if Bosch did not reject the safety technology.

Injured Plaintiffs

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.

News Reporters

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.

Industry Spokespeople 

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.

Government Officials

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.

Customers

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.

Manufacturers

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.”

1B.

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.

1.) Manufacturers

2.) Customers
The National Consumer’s League makes some claims based on the effectiveness of sawblade safety technologies.

 a. “[B]lade guards have proved to be ineffective in reducing the 40,000 serious table saw injuries that occur every year.”
 b. Blade guards, as are commonly used on table saws, are supposed to impart a level of safety to the use of the saw. This added level of safety is still unsatisfactory, as evidenced by the lack of drastic difference in the 40,000 serious injuries yearly.
 c. This is a deprecating claim — it is speaking negatively of the existing safety of table saws.
 d. Provided the statistic (40,000 injuries yearly) is accurate, this claim is very well made — if indeed the numbers in this claim are accurate, there is no other option but to say that the claim is valid.

3.) Industry Spokespeople
The Power Tool Institute is quoted on schmidtlaw.com as saying the following:

 a. “The Power Tool Institute, an industry group that represents Black & Decker and Bosch, said that the price of their table saws with the safety devices would ‘increase dramatically,’ eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws…”
 b. The PTI is of the opinion that the safety devices are significantly costly, or at least too costly for them to avoid passing that cost on to their consumers. Further they believe that the installation of safety devices, due to this cost, would raise the price of current consumer models such that they would be unattainable for the hobbyist consumer.
 c. This is a claim of powerlessness — the PTI is saying that it would be out of their power to do this while maintaining their values.
 d. This claim fails to address the obvious question of whether every saw model made must have the safety system, therefore it is not as effective as it could be.
 e. I would refute this claim for a few reasons — one, the relative cost to consumers of the safety system vs. a hospital trip, and relatedly the willingness of consumers to pay for that luxury; the other obvious question is this: if consumers want to take their safety into their own hands, why not offer saw models which do not come stock with the added safety technology? They would be no less safe than the current models, which are used worldwide already.

4.) Consumer Safety Advocates

5.) Injured Plaintiffs

6.) Personal Injury Lawyers

7.) Government Officials

8.) News Reporters

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4A: “For the past 50 years, the only safety technology on table saws was the blade guard. The blade guard is often removed because it is inconvenient for many types of cuts. Two thirds of table saw injuries reported were without a blade guard.”

This claim is stating that since the safety guard was the only safety technology in 50 years, and 2/3 of injuries that occur were because a safe guard was taken off, the safety guard should be kept on, or you should definitely have something else on there to replace the lack of a safety guard. The quote says it is inconvenient for the cut, so they are often removed. This further proves that the Saw Stop and similar devices are necessary.

http://www.nclnet.org/safer_saws_would_prevent_injuries_and_2_billion_annual_loss

5. Injured Plaintiffs

5A. “Now we are on food stamps, medical assistance, energy assistance. I want to call it a living nightmare.” -Adam Thull, a professional carpenter who is out of work because of a table saw accident.

Customers

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. Paraphrase: Injuries can be prevented if people stop fighting against safety technology.

Claim: Wec has a permanent injury.

Claim: Bosch and others rejected and fought against safety technology.

c. WHAT TYPE OF CLAIM?

d.  This claim is somewhat unreasonable, having a safer saw is not the only way that the Wec’s injury could have been prevented. Wec could have been more careful, but if his saw was safer his injury could have not happened. His claim is not 100% true about how his injury could have been prevented.

e. Wec should hold full responsibility for his saw injury, not the company. If he stayed careful he wouldn’t have got hurt.

Plaintiff

a. “The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty, and product liability. ”

b. Claim: His injures  from the saw are worth more than $30,000.

His injury is worth a lot of money due to Bosch table saw.

claim: Bosch neglects costumers.

The person’s injury is due to the fact that Bosch neglects their customers.

claim: There is a breach of warranty.

Claim: Bosch has product liability.

c. WHAT TYPE OF CLAIM IS BEING MADE?

d. This claim can be supportive, the injured person most likely had hospital bills, loss of work time and other expenses. However, the claim didn’t describe why the plaintiff is demanding so much money from the company. The claim is not persuasive, there is no information regarding how Bosch neglected the customer.

e. Injuries that are caused by the person using them are not the companies fault.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Government Officials

News Reporters

Personal Injury Lawyers:

A) “Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it. In fact, the world’s largest tool manufacturers rejected it.”

B) There are many claims made in this paragraph.

1. “Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries…”
2. “… resulting in more than 4,000 amputations.”
3. “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”
4. “… not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”
5. “In fact, the worlds largest tool manufacturers rejected it.”

C)

1. The type of claim being used in the first sentence is a cause and effect claim. Because there are 40,000 table saw injuries every year, it resulted in more than 4,000 amputations
2. Another claim would be that 3,4, and 5 are factual claims.

D) The accuracy of this paragraph would be spot on in certain areas. They have the facts that there are more injuries from table saws than any other woodworking tool and not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it. This would be accurate because its a fact.

E) With the first sentence it states 40,000 table saw injuries resulting in more than 4,000 amputations, but it doesn’t state if the amputations were because of the table saw or for medical reasons. they also give you the fact about how the worlds largest tool manufacturer rejected the SawStop, they don’t state a specific reason to why they rejected it? Was it because it causes more injuries than any other woodworking tool or maybe because of the cost and the company possibly having to raise the price of the product? They are too broad and not specific enough with the fact given.