Safer Saws- lmj20

1a. “The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws.”

1b. Many tool manufacturers are strongly offended by the idea of making safety features, like the Safe Saw, mandatory.

1c. The claim that manufacturers are against mandatory safety features is an opinion. It is vague in that in does not state whether the manufacturers will fight against Safe Saw from becoming mandatory or they are just against it as an idea.

1d. The claim has some evidence to back it up but cannot be proven. The evidence is shown in that many manufacturers do not offer safety features in any of their models. If they were not against safety features, they would likely offer them in their products. However, these manufacturers may not be offering safety features due to other factors like cost so it can’t be proven that they are solely against the concept of mandatory safety features.

2a.”All saws should have this technology, Wheeler says. “I mean, we’re dealing with human beings.”

2b. Wheeler claims that it is humane to implement universal Safe Saw technology.

2c. This claim is an opinion.

2d. This claim is logical. Wheeler witnessed firsthand one of his employees using Safe Saw which prevented him from having a traumatic injury. It makes sense that Wheeler, who often sees the pain and money that goes into table saw injuries, would be for adding it to all table saws.

3a.”The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation provided a statement: “Safety has historically been one of the Bosch principles…and is reflected in our slogan ‘Invented for life.'”

3b. Bosch, a company that reject Saw Stop, claims that safety is one of the company’s most important principles.

3c. This claim is an opinion.

3d. This claim is not supported by the company’s actions. They stated that they care about safety yet they do not offer any safe technology on table saws. If they truly valued safety, one would think that they would passionately accept Saw Stop technology despite the added cost.

4a.”What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,” says Bob Adler, a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

4b. Bob Adler claims that Safe Saw technology reduces all table saw injuries.

4c.This claim is a factual claim.

4d. This claim is reasonable and accurate. Safe Saw technology has been proven to stop at the detection of skin which undoubtedly has reduced injuries for those who use the saw. Adler has not claimed that Safe Saw eliminates all injuries, only that they  reduce the amount of injuries, which is certainly true.

5a.”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.”

5b. Wec, a victim of a table saw injury, claims that his injury could have been prevented if table saw manufacturers accepted Safe Saw technology.

5c. This is an opinion claim.

5d. This claim is somewhat accurate. If Safe Saw technology was accepted by manufacturers and made available to Wec then his injury most likely would not have occurred if he bought the safe saw. However, it can’t be proven that Wec, without knowing that he was going to be injured, would have bought the Safe Saw over the traditional saw for more money.

6a. “SawStop was a “game changer,” says Osorio’s attorney, Richard Sullivan, whose firm has been involved in most of the cases.”

6b. Sullivan, a personal injury lawyer, claims that Saw Stop is the invention that will hold saw manufacturers liable for injuries.

6c. This claim is an opinion.

6d. This claim is reasonable. Sullivan was an attorney in a table saw injury case. To win the case, Sullivan argued that his client’s injury would not have happened if Ryobi had implemented Saw Stop technology. The jury agreed and Osorio received $1.5 million. Many cases using Saw Stop as their defense have been just as successful.

8a. “Society will save money if safer saws are required.”

8b. The claim is that mandatory safe saws will save society money.

8c. The claim is an evaluation.

8d. This claim could possibly be accurate but there is no solid evidence stated to support it. The author merely states that by reducing hospital costs by lowering the amount of preventable saw injuries, the Safe Saw will save society money. This may be true but there is no research given besides the one fact that is stated that society spends $2 billion per year on preventable table saw injuries. Also, the manufacturers are not considered at all in this claim. Will the amount that society saves be worth the amount that manufacturers will have to spend?

9a.”They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

9b. Gass claims that saw manufacturers are rejecting his product because they do not believe that safety will sell.

9c. This is an opinion claim.

9d. This claim is reasonable. Most companies make decisions based solely on profit so if they do not think that Safe Saw technology would sell, that would explain why so little of them have added it to their products.