Counterintuitive Spring 2023

4. Consumer safety advocates (Gass)

4a. The petitioners state that current table saws pose an unacceptable risk of severe injury because they are inherently dangerous and lack an adequate safety system to protect users from accidental contact with the blade.

4b. This one sentence contains a plethora of claims:

• First, table saws are dangerous to their users.
• Second, the amount of danger that table saws present to their users exceeds an acceptable level.
• Third, some level of danger is in fact acceptable.
• Fourth, the injuries from table saw use are results of blade contact.
• Fifth, blade contact that causes the aforementioned injuries is accidental.
• Sixth, table saws do not contain a safety system.
• Seventh, the inherent danger of table saws could be reduced if a safety system was present.

4c. The types of claims in the sentence are as follows:

• First, a causal claim that table saws cause their users to be placed in danger.
• Second, an opinion-based claim that the danger posed by table saws exceeds an acceptable level.
• Third, an inferential claim that because there is a level at which danger is not considered acceptable, there must be a level at which danger is considered acceptable.
• Fourth, a consequential claim that because of contact with a blade, injuries occur to table saw users.
• Fifth, a seemingly factual claim that table saw users do not deliberately come in contact with the blade of their saws.
• Sixth, another claim that appears factual, and asserts that in current table saws, there is no safety system.
• Seventh, a causal claim that incorporating a safety system would reduce or eliminate the injuries that result from table saw use.

4d.

• The first claim does is not quantitatively supported, but it asserts that table saws are dangerous because of the potential for injury.
• The second claim is subjective, but it implies that in the opinion of Gass, there currently is too much inherent danger in the use of a table saw.
• The third claim is inferred from the second.  If Gass believes that there is currently too much danger, he surely must believe that there is a point at which there is not a excessive amount of danger.  It is possible that this point is the point at which there is no danger, but this is not explicitly confirmed or denied.
• The fifth claim is pretty straightforward; while there is no specific evidence, it can be simply deduced that contact with a rapidly moving sharp object would result in an injury.
• The fifth claim is probably quite accurate, as it seems unlikely that a table saw user would intentionally lacerate or amputate their own hand or fingers while working with a table saw.  It can be assumed that a reasonable person would choose a less painful and messy method to have their fingers or hand removed, and would most likely trust a medical professional to oversee this process.
• The sixth claim does not provide supporting evidence, and we must take Gass’ word that current table saws do not contain a safety system.  However, we can assume that if they did contain a safety system, we would not be hearing from Gass on this issue.
• The seventh claim seems reasonable.  It makes sense that if a system designed to prevent injuries were introduced to current table saws, fewer injuries would occur, as long as this system had been designed to do its job properly.  The connotation of the word “safety” suggests that this would in fact be the case.

1.

A.Injured Plaintiffs-A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.

B. An injured man claimed that “flesh detection and braking technology” was kept from miter saw requirements.

C. First- This would be a factual claim, because this had turned out to be truthful, a “fact”.

D. As far as I am concerned, this claim is completely reasonable because Robert Boschs Tool Corps refusal to introduce any type of safety measure would make it seem as if they were purposely keeping it off. However, the logic and accuracy of this claim may be contested given it seems like mere speculation, reasonable speculation, yet still speculation.

2

A. Consumer Safety Advocates-The primary technology used by the majority of table saw manufacturers to prevent table saw injuries is a plastic blade guard.  This technology has remained essentially the same for over 50 years.  Yet, blade guards have proved to be ineffective in reducing the 40,000 serious table saw injuries that occur every year.

B. The first claim is that the main technology used in preventing table saw injuries is a plastic blade guard.

The second claim is that this technology hasn’t changed much for over 50 years.

The third claim is that said plastic blade guards have been prove to be ineffective in reducing table saw injuries.

C. The first claim is factual; it is a fact that this is the main form of table saw protection.

The second claim is factual again, stating a fact that safe guards haven’t changed much in the last half a century.

The third claim, again, is factual because it is simply stating a fact of injury rates.

(all of these claims being factual may be because of the nature of the website)

D. The first claim is accurate because it is factual, as it is reasonable and logical as well given the nature of the claim. The second claim is reasonable when considering the progression of the average table saw, however, the accuracy may be up to debate as I imagine not every table saw manufacturer was consulted for this study. The third claim is certainly reasonable after knowing how much I do about table saws from the class, yet the quality is up to question in my opinion because it just seems to be making the claim, regardless of how true it seems.

3

A. Industry Spokespeople-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, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.

B. The first claim is that these safety devices would make the production of their products dramatically higher.

The second claim is that the implementation of the new safety requirements would give them an unfair market standing in comparison to SafetySaws.

8A. A news reporter named, Bridget Freeland, makes claims about what an injured worker, apparently named Wec, has said about his employers and the reasons for his injury. A sample being:

“Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch [the employer] and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

8B. There are many claims being made in this statement and they are all, sort of, ‘sub-claims’ to the overall claim that the reporter is making which is that Wec even said any of these other claims in the first place. Here the claims are listed and simplified a bit…

1. The overall claim that the reporter makes that the man is named Wec and that he made the claims he made, is the first claim.
2. Wec claims he has an injury
   1. He claims his injury is traumatic
   2. He claims his injury is permanent
3. He claims the injury could have been prevented.
   1. He claims it could have been prevented specifically and only if his employer and its competitors did not reject and fight against the technology.
      1.  Claims that the employer and its competitors share the same disposition about the saws.
      2. This also claims that his employer rejected the technology, this means that (the reporter claims that) Wec is claiming that his employer deemed the hardware not satisfactory to the standards that they set themselves. That is what it means to reject.
      3. He also claims that they “fought against” the technology.
         1. This could insinuate that the employer and their competitors not only rejected but also actively put effort into eliminating the general use of the technology.
         2. It cold also suggest that the employer put effort into the prevention of such a product even being manufactured in the first place.

2. Customers

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.

3A. “The Directorate for Engineering Sciences received a sample of a prototype tablesaw safety device, as well as a detailed demonstration from its inventor, on July 11, 2001 to evaluate its potential to address injury. The inventor also provided an information package that combines the extensive technical information of the 26 different patents obtained in designing the safety system.”

3B. This statement makes a few claims. First, it details what the Directorate of Engineering Sciences received from Mr. Gass. Second, it assumes that the product in question has the ability, at least to some degree, to address injury. It DOES NOT make the claim that it prevents injury in any way. Lastly, it mentions that information was received regarding patents on the product, with limited explanation of what these patents contained.

3C.  1) The first claim is direct, saying that the board received a prototype of the SawStop device from Mr. Gass, perhaps meaning that they’ve tested it out. This is certainly not confirmed though, as it only says that they have their hands on it. 2) The second claim is an assumption, one of which assumes that the product they have received can address injury in some way, positive or negative. All that can be assumed from this is that it affects the relationship between tablesaws and injury. 3) The last claim is also direct, stating that details on patents were received by the board.

3D. 1) The first claim is rather effective in its nature, being direct and to the point. It does contain vagueness in the realm of not explaining or elaborating as to whether the board has tested out the device or not. 2) The second claim is sightly less effective, as it only mentions that the product “addresses” injury. Perhaps it is kept vague like this on purpose? Maybe it does not desire to make any claims that are too specific? 3) The last claim, similar to the first is effective in its simple nature. It does not delve too deeply in the topic, only stating that patents were received, and from this it can be derived that patents, at least 26 of them, were created for this product.

8A. A reviewer from ProToolReviews comments, “This week, a man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws. Um… no doubt. 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.”

8B. As with everything, numerous claims are made in this statement. The first major claim is that a man was harmed by a Bosch brand tablesaw.

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. First: There are manufacturers that are facing dozens of lawsuits.

Second: There are people who have been injured by saws.

Third: The people who have been injured are suing the manufacturers.

Fourth: Sawstop or similar safety mechanisms could have prevented these injuries.

Fifth: There are safety mechanisms that are similar to SawStop but not SawStop.

6c. First: Influential claim claiming that the lawsuits are affecting and influencing how the manufacturers are acting.

Second: Inferential claim claiming that, although not outwardly stated, the people were injured by the saws.

Third: This claim is influential in the way the injuries are influencing the people to sue the manufacturers.

Fourth: Hindsight claim claiming that if Sawstop or similar safety mechanisms had been in place, the injuries may not have happened.

Fifth: Analogy claim comparing other safety mechanisms are similar to SawStop.

6d. First: Dozens may or may not be an exageration of the number of lawsuits the manufacturers are facing but they are mostly facing some number of lawsuits.

Second: Although we are infering, we can guarantee that people have been injured by saws or we wouldn’t have this entire situation.

Third: The manufacturers may be facing lawsuits from people who were not the ones injured, possibly by the creators of the safety mechanisms for not implementing them but the manufacturers are most certainly facing lawsuits from people who have been injured.

Fourth: The claim does not say for certain that Sawstop would have prevented these injured, only that it could have.

Fifth: We haven’t heard of any other products but that may just have been because Sawstop has caused the most controversy or that Sawstop was the first to be invented or that Sawstop has been the most successful but there are probably other safe mechanisms out there.

6e. First: Because it is not certain that the manufacturers are facing actual dozens of lawsuits, I think dozens can be removed.

Fifth: I think it would be better to just focus on Sawstop.

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.

Link to the Video provided by —DSH

0:00

It is a sunny day, some time between the morning and afternoon. You can tell it is not a car commercial due to there being no logo on the car. If it were a car commercial you would see for this car a Honda logo symbol on the front of the vehicle. Two doors are beginning to close so there is at least two people in the car. The house and very well keeper grass and bushes suggests whoever is the owner of this house, possibly the two people in the car, has good money or is making good money. The basketball hoop in the right side of the video tells me that it is most likely this is a family home with a kid of multiple children. The trees and no visible house to the right means that this is a wide spread neighborhood where the houses are not sitting on top of each other. This is another indicator that whoever lives in this home has good money.

0:02

There are two boys around the age of 12 in the front seat fighting over something physical in the boys hand. Both of the boys faces are very intense and is showing serious aggression towards the item in the boy’s hand. There is a teenage girl in the back seat listening to music threw her pink headphones. She is either ignoring what is going on with what I assume would be either her brothers, cousins, or possibly neighborhood friends or she is completely oblivious to the boys in the middle row seats due to her music being too loud maybe. The car is all black leather interior and looks like a very roomy and comfy drive.

0:05

Camera is moved and now focuses on the driver who could be the children’s father. His hair is gelled and he is wearing a white undershirt with a flannel which could mean he is going somewhere casual with his family or maybe its a little chilly outside and the white undershirt was not enough. He has a blank look on his face, but you can see his lips starting to get tense which could be caused by the boys in the back being loud and obnoxious. his seat belt is on which means he is ready to start driving, however his facial expression tells me he probably is not going to leave until the commotion with the boys is settled. Both the boys hand can be seen in the middle and they seem to still be fighting over some sort of an object or they are just pushing each other. It is hard to tell due to the focus being on the driver and the background being blurred. The fir can also be seen still listening to her music in the very back.

0:09

Now a woman is shown in the passenger seat. She seems to be around the same age as the driver which tells me that they are most likely married and that the children in the back are most likely theirs. She has a very similar look as the driver did which means she is feeling the same way about the fighting in the back has the driver does. However, the way her lips are positioned makes it seem like she is about to speak up to the children and tell them to calm down unlike the driver who was just blankly looking out the windshield. She is also wearing her seat belt so she is also ready to leave the driveway and go to the intended destination. You can kind of see the boy’s face and his arm which is towards the other half of the screen because he is most likely still trying to get the object from the other boy or he is simply pushing him. The girl in the very back seat is still listening to her music paying no attention to whats in front of her. I know this because threw the blur of the background you can see her head looking out the back window.

0:11

The Boys are not physically pushing each other and you can now see they are fighting over a bag of cheese puffs. From the boys constantly pulling the bag back and forth it finally rips and you see the cheese puffs begin to fly in the air. The boy to the left has a facial expression on that shows that he did not expect the bag to eventually rip open from the constant tearing. The boy to the right looks a little more aware of the cheese puffs going all over. It is as if the boy to the right knew that the bag was eventually going to break, but he does not care because if he can’t have the puffs then no one can. You can see the girl in the backseat’s chin and it is facing directly at the bag of cheese puffs, so now she is fully aware of what is going on in the car. However, her lips have no expression so that could either mean the video did not capture the face she is going to make soon which could be a shocked face or she simply does not care enough.

0:14

The cheese puffs are going very far from the bag now, so far that some of the puffs are not even in focus of the camera. The boy to the left still seems very frightened over the bag breaking. His partner in crime however now looks almost excited that the cheese puffs are going everywhere. The girl in the background completely vanishes now due to the cheese puffs blocking her whole face and upper body.

0:17

The mom is now turning around with her mouth open suggesting she is about to yell at the boys for spilling the snack all over the well kept car. Her eyes show the angry in her face so she is definitely anger. The boys are now very close to each other’s faces and they are both screaming at each other. You can tell because of how much the mouths are open and by the boy to the rights tightened and tensed neck. The girl in the way back still has no facial expression at all on her face which means she is most likely used to these boys fighting as if it were a daily ritual. Her head looks like it is about to go back to whatever she was doing prior to the bag spilling again showing she has no interest. Her eyes are still looking up at the boys though so she did have slight interest and curiosity to what was going on.

0:18

The moms head is now fully turned around and she is looking at one or both of the boys. She has a cheese puff on her left shoulder which would only make her more made because she is also dressed casual and is wearing a yellow sweater. He face however does not look as angry as before. maybe because she is so used to the boys making a mess. Her hair is done nice and she has lipstick on so this is a reminder that the family is defiantly going out in public so they want to look nice, but not over done.

0:19

The boy to the left looks almost confused and sad. He maybe confused because he was expecting his mom to yell at them but she did not. He is defiantly locking eyes with his mother and his brother is also looking directly at the mother. However, the boy to the right almost looks like he is shocked that he may have gotten of so easy for the mess he took part in. His look could also be interpreted as a damn we got caught and there is no way out of this one. The girl in the background is looking at the mother so now she is fully engaged. Maybe because she wants to see her brothers get in trouble for being such a pain.

0:22

Here the boys just put their seat belts on. This explains the shocked looks on the boy’s faces because she must have completely ignored the fact that there are cheese doodles all over the car and told them to put there seat belts on. That took a very unexpected turn which leads me to believe that this is some sort of safely commercial because why else would the mom completely ignore the fact that an entire bag of puffs were ripped open and flung all over the car. It is such a curve that there is really no other logical explanation.

0:23

The driver who we can infer to be the dad is now happy all of a sudden. This means that the whole time his blank face look was most likely due to the fact that his son’s seat belts were not buckled yet. The mom seems to be turning back around to face the front again still ignoring that there are cheese puffs everywhere. You can also see the boy to the left and he looks calm and relieved that the fighting is over with his brother and he didn’t get yelled at by his mom for what he thought she was going to originally yell at him for.

0:26

The car is now pulling out of the driveway. So the whole time the only reason the car was not already in motion was due to the boys in the back not having their seat belts on. So the driver was defiantly waiting for everyone to be buckled up which tells me this is 100 percent some sort of a safe driving commercial.

0:29

The saying never give up until they give up appears which indicates that the point is do not leave the or move the car until everyone seat belts are on. That buckling up is a battle the parents must always win. The end quote says “never give up until they buckle up,” so now it is proven that this was a safe driving commercial for parents and other adults so they make sure everyone in the car is safe and ready for the trip ahead.

1. Manufacturers-
   1. A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback. 
   2. The majority of powersaw injuries are from kickback, not from blade contact.
   3. This is a causal claim, stating that a large percentage of injuries result from the kickback, and a low amount from the blade itself.
   4. This is a reasonable argument for the powertool manufacturers to make. They are under fire to implement safety features that would prevent injuries from direct contact to the blade. They point out that only a low percentage of harm happens due to cuts from the blade, while many result from kickback. This helps their argument for not utilizing the safety mechanism, since it would do nothing to prevent kickback, from which most injuries occur. 
2. Customers-
   1. As advanced as table saw safety has come, there is still no substitute for training, experience, good judgement and alertness. (Outside article- Why Not a SawStop?)
   2. One should not rely on the SawStop alone for protection. Training and focus are the most important when it comes to using table saws.
   3. This is a value claim. The author places more value on judgement, alertness, experience, and training than on the SawStop itself.
   4. This customer makes it clear that the safety mechanism alone will not prevent all injuries. This makes complete sense, for one should know how to install the Sawstop correctly, operate a table saw, and avoid kickback, and not just blindly rely on the invention to prevent all injuries.
3. Industry Spokespeople-
   1. Many industry representatives believe that modification of consumer behavior through information and education campaigns could best address the hazard.
   2. Industry spokespeople want to inform consumers about the hazards of power saws through education campaigns and sharing information.
   3. This is a causal claim, since spokespeople believe informing and educating the public on how to safely operate power saws will alleviate the risks.
   4. It seems that most power saws are straight forward and come with instructions/safety guides. The spokespeople might be anxious to initiate this campaign of information to avoid the costs associated with implementing SawStop technology. The SawStop would not require a modification of consumer behavior; it would just stop the blade on skin contact, preventing serious injuries. The use of the word modification lends a forceful air to this claim, as if the consumers are currently at fault for the injuries they are experiencing. This campaign could cause a gap between companies and consumers, since consumers may feel inferior after the companies start trying to teach them how to properly use the tools.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates-
   1. It is on the market already and has demonstrated its effectiveness with over 1000 finger saves.
   2. SawStop has saved north of 1000 fingers.
   3. This is a consequential claim, saying that over 1000 fingers have been “saved” as a result of SawStop technologies.
   4. It is accurate that SawStop is on the market and has indeed prevented some injuries. However, since this a Consumers Advocate group making this claim, they use strange wording that is meant to be to their advantage: finger saves. The word saves could be interpreted as saved from amputation or being cut right off. However, it is impossible to know how many fingers have been “saved.” Without SawStop, many of these fingers may have just experienced a cut, rather than complete amputation. Their vague use of the word saves is making SawStop out to be a savior that stops inevitable finger destruction at the hands, or jagged teeth, of a power saw.
5. Injured Plaintiffs- 
   1. 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.
   2. The plaintiff is claiming that he was injured because the company he purchased a power saw from fought against safety advances and chose to not incorporate them into their products.
   3. This is a causal claim, saying the companies’ rejection of SawStop caused his traumatic injury.
   4. Later in the article, the plaintiff says that the safer technology has been on the market for years. He knows that safer options were available for purchase and admits it, but chose to use the dangerous saw instead. Although the safer saws on the market may have been out of his price range, if the entire power saw industry becomes required to build in the safety mechanism for which Wec advocates, the price will rise due to royalties and the contraption costs regardless. Wec could have saved himself pain and hospital bills by using the already available safe saw on the market, but instead he got injured, and chooses to advocate for mandatory installation when it is already too late. If he was truly passionate for his cause, he could have refused to use the dangerous saws and fought for safer saws from the beginning, rather than after he has already experienced an injury.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers-   
   1. Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than   4,000 amputations. 
   2. Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations.
   3. This is a factual and consequential claim. The claim is stating statistical findings that report the number of injuries and amputations, which are facts, unless the numbers have been inflated and/or deflated. “Resulting in more than 4,000 amputations” makes this a consequential claim, since it is saying the amputations were a consequence of the table saw injuries.
   4. This claim is just stating statistics, but the injury lawyers have clients to gain by how they phrase their claims. They leave out the fact that most of those 40,000 injuries are from kickback, and make sure to include the most gruesome result: amputations. They do not make clear if the amputations are from the blade itself, spinning and hacking a finger or hand right off, or if doctors wind up doing most of the amputations at a hospital. This claim is concocted to make power saws seem like very dangerous machines, in which the blade alone is responsible for over 40,000 injuries.
7. Government Officials-
   1. Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as Page 2 amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.
   2. Power saw injuries affect the victims and their families forever.
   3. The families and victims are said to be impacted forever by power saw injuries, making the power saws the cause of much grief. This amounts to a causal claim.
   4. This claim is an emotional appeal, using “impacted their families forever” and “changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers” to attempt to instill outrage or sympathy in readers. In this emotional respect, the claim is written well. However, emotions should generally not be utilized for rational decisions that government officials should be making. They should look strictly at the facts, and this claim generalizes the negative impacts that power saw injuries have. Many consumers surely recover from their injuries, and their own lives and the lives of their families are not changed forever.
8. News Reporters-
   1. All of that happens in less than five thousandths of a second, ten times faster than a car’s airbag.
   2. SawStop stops the blade faster than a car’s airbag deploys.
   3. This is a factual claim, stating the time it takes for the SawStop safety mechanism to deploy and comparing that to the length of time in which an airbag deploys.
   4. The time in which the blade stops when SawStop deploys is given, which backs up the overall aim of this technology, to prevent your finger from receiving a bad injury. Consumers can relate to the airbag comparison, since many have seen or felt the speed in which airbags deploy. Since SawStop is ten times faster than an airbag, this provides legitimacy and comparable speeds by which to judge the technology.