Safer Saws-Beyonce1234

1A: Clint DeBoer states, in his Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit summary that, “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: This quote states, the company isn’t for having the SawStop safety involved with power tools.

1c: This is an evaluation claim because there is a judgement about strongly the company feels about having to deal with adding the SawStop technology. This can not be measured nor assessed. This convinces readers to believe that because they are offended about the idea.

1d: The claim makes the issue of not wanting the SawStop technology personal. People get offended because of something they are against or hurt by something. It seems that they are offended by even having the SawStop invented was hurtful to them. As if Steve Gass should have thought about the issues the Power Tool Institute will have.

2a: From a customers who has bought and used the SawStop, “The purchase of this saw has raised the bar on all my other shop tools.”

2b: The customer is clearly satisfied with their purchase of SawStop. They believe that if the other tools do not have this technology, then they will probably not by it.

2c: This is a opinion claim. The customer made their opinion that SawStop is better than other tools because of its stop technology. Though this person believes that it is better, others might not.

2d: The claim states that the customer believes that this is the most effective tool they now have, compared to the other tools. They have some sort of tool standard and the SawStop is now their best tool. All their other tools do not compare to how good the SawStop is.

3a: In Clint DeBoer’s lawsuit article, he states: “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.”

3b: If the safety invention had to be used in all tools, it would be hard for companies because of the few rights given for this kind of technology.

3c: This is a evaluation claim. We do not know for sure that it would be difficult, but evidence can back up predictions.

3d: The claim here states that their are issues when it comes to sensor technology. The issues are not listened so we don’t know what they are. It is too hard for the industry to make this rule mandatory because of these issues.

4a: In the small article on NCL states,”The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the cost.”

4b: The cost of putting the SawStop technology is better than getting a finger amputated.

4c: This can be a factual claim because paying more money to be safe is, in fact, better than dealing with a lost finger, hospital bills, etc. It would not make sense if someone would say that they rather lose a finger than pay an extra $100.

4d: This claim states that there is obvious reasons to improve the safety of table tools, and that they are more reasonable than worrying about money and other issues. Safety first.

5a: A quote from The Courthouse News Service: “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: If the mandatory rule to add SawStop to all table saw were not vanished, this injury would not have happened.

5c: This is a proposal claim because Wec is trying to tell Bosch that he still should accept the safety technology. He is using himself as a real example to Bosch, and he his saying that it is Bosch’s fault.

5d: This claim states that table saw injuries are caused from lack of safety technology. If Bosch did not reject the rule to use the technology in table saws, Wec’s injury would not have happened. If the technology was being used, then there would be no injuries.

6a: The Courthouse News Service also states: “Wec demands more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability. He is represented by Michael Cushing.”

6b: Wec is suing Bosch for their carelessness. He also has a lawyer.

6c: This is a factual claim because all parts are true and can be proven so.

6d: Because Wec was injured from actions of Bosch, Wec decides to take action to court, making it a judges decision on who is to blame for table saw injuries. Michael Cushing will also be defending Wec.

7a: The Bosch Tool SawStop lawsuit states, “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.”

7b: SawStop can be too much of a scientific invention, and there might be risk of this not working. If one product isn’t made properly, then there could be injuries.

7c: This is a proposal claim because it is saying if the invention is on the market it could cause defects in the way it’s supposed to work. This is saying what way something should be and giving a reason.

7d: The claim states that there could be issues regarding how reliable the product would be on the market. There could be that one in thousands of working SawStops that doesn’t stop when touched by a finger. It is too much of a “high tech” invention to be reliable.

8a: News reporter Chris Arnold states: “I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year.”

8b: Chris Arnold went into research and saw who severe and often saw accidents really are.

8c: This is a factual claim because Arnold researched a fact that he saw surprising. It is true that thousands of table saw accidents happen every year. It is a fact that he didn’t know this before and now he does.

8d: This claims that the injures of table saws are often and severe. This also claims that Arnold must have done research to find this fact because he said “I found out.”

9a: After trying the invention on himself, Steve Gass described the SawStop as, “It felt a little like a buzz or a tickle almost.”

9b: This states that his invention does work and he only felt just a small cut instead of major injury. By putting his own finger to the saw, it didn’t hurt him.  He describes what it felt like to touch the spinning blade for a thousands of a second.

9c: This is a factual claim because it is true that Gass did not get injured by the saw stopping when he touched it. This proves that his invented works and is successful.

9d: There is only one small injury with no emergency situation. It seems silly to describe a cut caused by a table saw as just a little tickle, but this just proves that his own invention works and is reliable.