A.  “Wec says that Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.”

B.

• First: This claim that Bosch colluded with his competitors
• Second: It also claims that the reason for collusion was to develop their own miter and table saws
• Third: The second claim has a claim that the colluders are going to have the same idea.
• Fourth: It its assumed that Bosch Tool and their competitors will continue to sell their saws and stay in business
• Fifth: It is claimed that Bosch Tool’s tables and saws are dangerous
• Sixth: It is a claim that competitors and Bosch Tool were selling their own version of saws separately

C

• The first claim is a casual claim that states Bosch Tool colluded with its competitors to come up with a solution
• The second claim is a casual claim because the competitors and Bosch Tools are going to get together to come up with an idea for their own saw
• The third claim is casual claim because coming with the same version the competitors and Bosch Tool are going to make or stop something as an effect
• The fourth claim is factual because they colluded to in order to create a different version and benefit the business in the future
• All the incidents and warnings about the saw make the fifth claim factual
• The sixth claim is a factual claim because the competitors and Bosch Tool would not get together if they were selling the same product.

D

A. Wec is the constituent

B. “Wec demands more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability”

C. Consequence is the type of claim made by Wec

D.We have to ask why Wec desires an amount of 30,000 only from Bosh. It’s not logical on  Wec’s to only ask for money from Bosch simply because he doesn’t state what the cause was to his injury. It is also insufficient  that Wec only blames Bosch for his own mistake because it doesn’t state who is at fault, Bosch or himself.

E.  It’s negligent on Wec’s part because it doesn’t make sense for Bosch to pay for his mistake if it was his own fault or another the label company’s fault.

Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market

A.  Wec is the constituent

B.  Wec demands more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability.

C.  Claim of consequence

D. Wec demanding $30,000 is not reasonable.  How do we know that Wec’s injury was self-inflicted.  It is unreasonable to claim negligence on Bosh’s part.  Safety features and disclaimers are posted on the products and in the owner manuals.

E.  It’s negligent on Wec not Bosch so it doesn’t make sense for Bosh to make payment for his mistake.

“Bosc Tools Dragged Into SawStop-Centric Lawsuit”

7A: Mr. Schiech indicated that if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.

7B: Gass wants to make a mandatory rule requiring businesses to have certain safety restrictions. Mr. Scheich claims that the businesses would not be able to follow this rule because of legal concerns regarding patents on the technology required.

7C: The claim as a whole is causal because of the ‘if/then’ statement. The claim of ‘extreme difficulty’ is kind of a gray area because ‘extreme’ can be a subjective term.

7D: Mr. Scheich’s claim regarding the extreme difficulty of the industry’s compliance seems like more of an opinion to me. He also talks about the industry’s patent restrictions on sensor technology, but he doesn’t really go into any of them.

A) Government officials- Mr. Schiech (agency’s commissioner)

B) “Mr. Schiech indicated that if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.” Mr. Schiech explains that the businesses would not be able to follow this rule because of the legal contents regarding patents on the technology required.

C) Casual Claim and Evaluation Claim

D) The claim is not entirely accurate because “extreme” is a relative term. It is more of an opinion on how difficult it would be to comply with the rule.  The claim is more of a statement instead of having any supporting factors to contribute to it.

E)

Bosch Tools Dragged Into SawStop-centric Lawsuit

A. Government officials

B. “Mr. Schiech indicated that if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.” Mr. Schiech explains that the businesses would not be able to follow this rule because of the legal contents regarding patents on the technology required.

C. Causal claim and evaluation claim

D. The claim is not entirely accurate because “extreme” is a relative term. It’s more of an opinion on how difficult it would be to comply with the safety rule. The claim is more of a statement instead of having any supporting factors to contribute to it.

E.

Bosch Tools Dragged Into SawStop-centric Lawsuit

A) Government Officials – The Agency’s Commissioners “Mr. Schiech indicated that if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.”

B) Gass wants to make a mandatory rule requiring business’s to have the safety restrictions.  Mr. Schiech explains that the businesses would not be able to follow this rule because of legal concerns regarding patents on the technology required.

C) Causal Claim and Evaluation Claim

D) The claim is not entirely accurate because extremely is a relative term. It is more of an opinion on how difficult it would be to comply with the rule.  There

He claims that the inventor of the flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer. He furthers that Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.

• A. He claims that the inventor of the flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer. He furthers that Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.
• B. The claim is that Bosch rejected Gass’ deal not because they were against furthering safety, but so they wouldn’t have to pay royalties to Gass for the installation of one of his safe saw units in each saw.
• C. I think the claim is a causal claim because Bosch didn’t install Gass’ technology because they are planning to install their own.
• D. The logic behind this claim is pretty sound because I don’t believe Gass’ technology is so groundbreaking that only he knows how to manufacture a saw stopping device. It makes sense that Bosch  would rather develop their own than pay Gass royalties.

• A. Quote the constituent: Chairman Inez M. Tenednbaum / CPSC our determined regulators

FIRST SENTENCE OF STATEMENT

• “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. Paraphrase or explain what claim is made if necessary, or simply repeat the quote if not. Everyone agreed collectively that they would be sending a booming signal to consumers and the industry that the CPSC  is determined to bring about a solution for serious, preventable table saw injuries.

• C. Identify what type of claim is being made. A factual claim is being made if the claims are made based off of sound data. It could also be a causal claim if the cause of the injuries  is the contact of skin with a blade and not the lack of safety measures taken by the manufacturers. Everything is assumed to be understood as truthful.

• D. In a few sentences, evaluate the accuracy, quality, reasonableness, logic, and persuasiveness of the claim, and any support that is offered for the claim. (Obviously no claim can contain all the evidence necessary to support it, so I’ll ask you not to disqualify claims just because they’re insufficient to prove themselves.) Preventable injuries happen each year. Serious injuries happen each year. There is a solution to the serious, preventable injuries. The CPSC is determined . Industry and consumers will be reached. Industry and consumers should receive a clear signal. A clear signal of the solution to serious and preventable table saw injuries. Nearly everyone, if not all, on the commission voted in agreement with one another.

• E. You may also choose to refute the claim, again in a few sentences, if you disagree with it. As a factual claim, preventable could be refuted, so, the entire claim as a whole (in terms of a claim harboring a request) could be denied on the basis of probability and human tendencies.