5A: Ryszard Wec claimed that 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 claims that this injury was traumatic and permanent because of the saw.
- He also claims that his injury could have been prevented if the safety laws were not technology.
- Wec claimed that Bosch was not the only company fighting the safety technology.
- The last claim in the sentence is that the safety technology was not only fought but rejected as well.
5C
- The first claim is a casual claim because his injuries were a result from getting cut by the saw.
- The second claim is another casual claim because it is Wec’s opinion that his injuries would have been prevented.
- The third claim is a factual claim because it is a fact that there were multiple companies fighting the techonology.
- The final claim is also factual because it is clearly stated that the technology was rejected.
5D
- The accuracy of this claim is unclear because although Wec’s injury is permanent, we will never know how traumatic it was.
- There is good reason to the second claim because if the safety technologies were put in place, the injury most likely would not have happened.
- The third claim is definitely factual but what is unclear is how many companies fought against the technology.
- The fourth claim is also accurate and reasonable in Wec’s argument because it is true that the technology was rejected and he could not do anything about it.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Could I get some feedback please?
Feedback provided. —DSH
Hey, Erik!
5. (Where’s 1-4 and 6-8?)
Ask me about using single quotes inside double quotes.
5B.
—OK first point
—What? “if the safety laws were not technology”?
—He does more than claim that multiple companies fought the technology. He claims that, in violation of anti-trust laws, they conspired to agree that none of them would adopt it.
—And yes, they did all reject it.
5C. I see now that you’re trying to cover the entire assignment by finding several claims in one quotation. That’s not a terrible strategy, but it avoids a beneficial part of the assignment: finding a small claim from each of 8 constituents to the controversy.
—Yes, it’s causal (spell it CAUSAL not CASUAL).
—Also agreed
—Not at all. Even if no company adopted the technology, accusing them of collusion or conspiracy is not a factual claim at all. It’s a very dangerous hypothesis, since it’s illegal to conspire to fix a marketplace.
—Yes, they rejected it.
5D.
—I guess, but it seems pointless to quibble with a man who cut his hand off.
—Yes, that’s true too. Of course, drivers could also argue that if their cars were more like tanks, they wouldn’t be so likely to be injured in accidents. Does that make the car maker responsible?
—What is unclear is whether they independently rejected it or conspired to agree that none of them would adopt it to seek a competitive advantage.
—He couldn’t prevent them from rejecting the technology, but he could have bought the technology, just not from them.
I think I may have suggested that during the class period you could analyze several claims in one quote, Erik, but the “take home” assignment was to analyze eight claims from eight constituents. Drop me another comment when you’ve done that.
Grade recorded. Always Improvable.