Counterintuitive Spring 2024

A. Wec is the constituent

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

C. Wec is claiming a claim of consequence. (this happened therefore this needs to occur)

D. We have to ask where Wec devised the amount of money. It is not logical for Wec to demand only $30,000 and that he is claiming negligence because it would be negligent on his part not Bosch, how does he feel entitled to the money from Bosch and not someone else.

E. The negligence is performed on his part instead of Bosch’s making then negligence claim invalid. It does not make sense for Bosch to pay for his mistake.

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. “People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries. Those who lack medical insurance suffer an unfathomable amount of pain, multiple surgeries, and a bill that they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.”

B. People that were injured are devastated, especially the uninsured ones who are unable to work after the injury and are handed bills they will never be able to pay.

C. It is a Cause and Effect Claim

D. The bills of the people that got injured has nothing to do with the manufacturers, the liability of the manufacturers is the malfunctioning, below average safety of the product in the market. But being insured is the responsibility of each and every American, if they fail to do so, then blaming others is more like extortion. It is necessarily not true that those injuries can prevent all of them from working, there is always a suitable job for every person.

7A. “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…”

7B. This is claiming that the unanimous vote by the Commission for ANPR should send a clear signal to the industry

7C. This is a causal claim, saying that because the vote was unanimous, that a clear signal should be sent to the industry in effect

7D. This claim difficult to assess on accuracy because it is an opinion and not a fact.  This is a low quality claim because it operates under the assumption that the Commission  would send or want to send a “clear signal” to consumers and industry.  The logic of this claim is easy to see, saying that because the Commission’s vote was unanimous that the industry should follow in their belief.  This claim isn’t very persuasive, and doesn’t really make an attempt to persuade people into its belief.

7A. “Today’s unanimous vote by the Commission to approve an advance notice of proposed rule making (ANPR) on table saw blade contact injuries should send a clear signal to consumers and the industry”

7B. The claim is that the vote by the Commission for ANPR sends a clear signal to consumers and industry.

7C. The claim above is a causal claim where the unanimous vote by the Commission is the cause, the effect being the clear signal is sends to consumers and industry.

7D. The claim is difficult to assess on accuracy because the claim is an opinon.  This is a low quality claim because it operates under the assumption that the Commission would send  or want to send a “clear signal” to consumers or industry.  We can understand the logic behind the claim, the Commission does have serious control over matters that affect industry and consumers.

7E. N/A

7A. “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”

7B. The claim is that the vote of the ANPR’s Commission sends a clear signal to consumers and industry

7C. This is a causal claim since the Commission of ANPR says that because of the unanimous vote that sends out a clear signal to customers and the tool making industry.

7D. The accuracy of the claim is low, not because it is a false claim, but since it is more of an opinionated claim accuracy of the claim is more or less non-existent. The claim is low quality because it is based on the assumption that the Commission of ANPR would send a clear signal to the consumers and industry. The logic of the claim is evident, one would hope that a unanimous vote would open the eyes of people and see that the Commission holds a lot of power. Going back to the “clear signal” bit from the claim.

• 6A: “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws.”
• 6B: That thousands of people are consistently injured at a rate of thousands per year. We are not sure if they are using the saws in a correct manner. They claim that users are injured after they use the saw, not during. They could have been doing any activity when they got injured after using the saw.
• 6C: The claim is a causal claim, it claims that the users are getting injured by using the table saws.
• 6D: The first claim, “every year” is not accurate or reasonable because it is necessary that the people must be injured by table saws every year
  • the second claim “Thousands of people” is also not accurate because that number must stay consistent every year and that is not proven.
  • Third claim, “severely injured” is illogical because it claims that all of the thousands are severely injured and not injured in a minor way.
  • The fourth claim, that users are injured “after using table saws” This is completely inaccurate and not valid. The claim does not have anything to do with the use of the table saw, but focuses on after the use.
• 6E: I would dispute that they claim users are being injured “after” using the table saws, this could mean a number of different things. The users could be injured doing anything not involving the table saw after they have finished using the saw.

• 6A: “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws.”
• 6B: That thousands of people are consistently injured at a rate of thousands per year. We are not sure if they are using the saws in a correct manner. They claim that users are injured after they use the saw, not during. They could have been doing any activity when they got injured after using the saw.
• 6C: The claim is a causal claim, it claims that the users are getting injured by using the table saws.
• 6D: The first claim, “every year” is not accurate or reasonable because it is necessary that the people must be injured by table saws every year
  • the second claim “Thousands of people” is alson not accurate because that number must stay consistant every year and that is not proven.
  • Third claim, “severely injured” is illogical because it claims that all of the thousands are severely injured and not injured in a minor way.
  • The fourth claim, that users are injured “after using table saws” This is completely inaccurate and not valid. The claim does not have anything to do with the use of the table saw, but focuses on after the use.
• 6E: I would dispute that they claim users are being injured “after” using the table saws, this could mean a number of different things. The users could be injured doing anything not involving the table saw after they have finished using the saw.