Safe Saws – Rachel Saltzman

Posted on February 25, 2014 by Rachel Saltzman

1. Manufacturers

A. The Power Tool Institute claims, “Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position.”

B.

  • The PTI claims that SawStop is asking for 8% licensing and royalties.
  • This 8% applies to the wholesale price of each sold saw.
  • This 8% is too much for many power tool manufacturers.
  • These manufacturers believe it will lead to near-extortion and a “monopoly”.

C.

  • First claim: Factual.
  • Second claim: Factual.
  • Third claim: Categorical.
  • Fourth claim: Consequential.

D.

2. Customers

A. Chris Baylor, a SawStop customer claims “Now, that safety feature has been added to a world-class contractor saw, one loaded with features that rivals any other contractor saw that I’ve ever used.”

B.

  • Baylor claims that the SawStop safety feature has been combined with a contracter saw.
  • This contractor saw is world-class and loaded with features.
  • These features make the SawStop a rival to other contractor saws (that he has used).

C.

  • First claim: Factual.
  • Second claim: Categorical.
  • Third claim: Resemblance.

3. Industry Spokespeople

A. According to power tool company representative Susan Young, “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.”

B.

  • Young claims that SawStop is currently available on the power tool market.
  • Any consumer can access the power tool market.
  • It is up to the consumer to decide to buy SawStop or not.

C.

  • First claim: Factual.
  • Second claim: Categorical.
  • Third claim: Factual.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

A. The National Consumers League claims, “All members of society have a right to expect that the products they use will be safe.”

B.

  • The NCL claims that all members of society have rights.
  • One of these rights is to expect safe products.
  • Members of society have the right to use products.

C.

  • First claim: Factual.
  • Second claim: Categorical.
  • Third claim: Factual.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

A. Ryszard Wec claims, “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market.”

B.

  • Wec claims that power tool company Bosch agreed to not employ safer technologies like SawStop.
  • Bosch and its competing companies attempted to prevent safer technologies from becoming “state of the art and therefore shield them from liability.
  • Non-safe saws are “defective products.”

C.

  • First claim: Factual.
  • Second claim: Proposal.
  • Third claim: Categorical.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

A. A statement from The Schmidt Firm on their Table Saw Injury Lawyer page reads, “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”

B.

  • The Schmidt Firm is claiming that table saws cause injuries.
  • Table saws cause many injuries.
  • Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.

C.

  • First claim: Consequential.
  • Second claim: Consequential.
  • Third claim: Definitional.

D.

7. Government Officials

A. Inez Tenenbaum of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission stated, “Today’s unanimous vote by the Commission to approve an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on table saw blade contact injuries should send a clear signal to consumers and the industry that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year.”

B.

  • Tenenbaum claims that the CPSC voted that day.
  • The vote was unanimous.
  • They voted to approve an advanced notice of “proposed” rulemaking on contact injuries caused by table saw blades.
  • This vote sends a clear signal to consumers and the power tool industry.
  • This clear signal shows that the CPSC is determined.
  • The CPSC want to help reduce the number of preventable saw injuries.
  • These saw injuries are serious.
  • These saw injuries occur every year.

C.

  • First claim: Factual.
  • Second claim: Categorical.
  • Third claim: Factual.
  • Fourth claim: Evaluation.
  • Fifth claim: Categorical.
  • Sixth claim: Definitional.
  • Seventh claim: Categorical.
  • Eight claim: Factual.

8. News Reporters

A. Clint DeBoer from Pro Tool Reviews wrote, “Besides that, his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and clearly were violated in this instance.”

B.

  • DeBoer is claiming that the man who was cut by a Bosch miter saw could have prevented his injury.
  • That claim contains a smaller claim that there are proper ways to follow existing safety procedures.
  • Another claim is that these safety procedures are well documented.
  • Finally, DeBoer claims that these well documented safety procedures were clearly violated.

C.

  • First claim: Consequential.
  • Second claim: Definitional.
  • Third claim: Categorical.
  • Fourth claim: Factual.
Unknown's avatar

About Rachel Saltzman

A promising young writer who is constantly developing and reevaluating her skills. Loves cats, Vietnamese food, and purple things.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Safe Saws – Rachel Saltzman

  1. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    February 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    You go girl. (8B) Excellent dissection of a sentence containing multiple claims.

    [Consider the value of making many nested claims when we’re issuing denials: “It is not true that the operator’s injury would have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures that are well documented and were clearly violated in this instance.” That single denial could be accurate if 1) the injury couldn’t have been prevented, or 2) if it couldn’t have been prevented by following procedures, 2a) the existing procedures, or if 3) the procedures aren’t documented, 3a) well documented, or if 4) the procedures weren’t violated, 4a) clearly violated.]

    Reply
  2. Rachel Saltzman's avatar sadisutiku says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:24 PM

    I need to work on the last part of each argument, but can I have feedback for what I have already?

    Reply
  3. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    March 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM

    Let’s go.
    1. I’d say the important claims are definitional: that a licensing fee amounts to extortion and monopoly.
    2. I’d say the important claim is the resemblance claim, that the SawStop saw is as good as any saw available.
    3. Ms. Young’s most important claim is probably the unspoken and hidden claim that because SawStop can be procured in the market, there’s no need for major manufacturers to produce their own safe saws.
    4. I’d say this is primarily a proposal claim, that we are all entitled to specific rights (in other words SHOULD BE granted these rights), such as to purchase products that are safe.
    5. The important claim here is that Bosch and other competitors conspired to strategically avoid liability. In other words: saw manufacturers are conspirators.
    6. Perfectly reasonable.
    7. The most important claim here is that the Commission will make rules to reduce injuries, a proposal claim, a categorical claim, a causal claim.
    8. Very nice. The overall thrust of the sentence is causal and evaluative. Mr. DeBoer was a bad operator and caused his own accident.

    Reply

Leave a comment