Safer Saws- jsoccer5

1.Manufacturers

1A. “A table saw manufacturer that is not a member of PTI tried to license SawStop’s patent portfolio technology but negotiations failed when the manufacturer alleged that SawStop demanded unreasonable royalties in excess of what was originally being sought.”

1B. When a manufacturer tried to license SawStop the negotiation failed because requested royalties were unreasonable.

1C. The claim that the royalties were too high is purely an Opinion Claim.

1D. While this claim is not very strong as there is no facts that the royalties were too high. While he does have no entendre he does make reference to the fact that it is in excess as to what was originally sought making it reasonable to think that anything extra would be unreasonable.

2. Customers

2A.”Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625″

2B. Price in a regular table saw would go up 225 dollars due to expenses for hardware and the royalty fees.

2C. The claim that price would increase is factual but the claim on how much is not proven therefore is an opinion.

2D. While this factual claim does hold some truth that price will go up there is nothing to prove the point of how much therefore the amount is considered opinion and eliminates the fact trying to be proven.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4A. “The CPSC says that 67,000 people are injured every year using table saws, resulting in 33,000 emergency-room visits, 4000 amputations, and $2.3 billion spent on medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.”

4B. Every year there are many thousands of injuries due to table saws, resulting in not only large expenses but mental and physical injury.

4C. Overall this claim is factual.

4D. While this claim is factual because of the direct statistics there is no statistics on the last three mini claims maid therefore it is not highly persuasive and not well though out. This claim is logical as it uses statistical evidence.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

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. The man injured by a regular table saw argues that his injury wouldn’t have happened if the Bosch company had not declined the safe technology of SawStop.

5C. This claim is purely opinion.

5D. The claim that this injury wouldn’t have happened if the big companies did not deny the safer technology is opinion because he does not know this for sure. This is a reasonable claim to make as he knows if the saw didn’t cut him he wouldn’t have gotten injuries which is also incredibly logical. This claim is also persuasive in the fact that his opinion is hard to argue with since there is no cases that the SawStop technology has ever not saved someone from injury.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6A. “SawStop cannot mitigate fractures and crushing injuries caused by work piece kickback or loss of vision caused by high velocity particles ejected by the saw blade.”

6B. SawStop can only eliminate injury by direct contact of the blade but not other injuries.

6C. The claim that SawStop only prevents contact injuries it is factual.

6D. This claim while it is a fact that it only prevents contact injuries, which is accurate it is also highly persuasive to prove the point that these aren’t as safe as they seem.

9.Steve Gass himself

9A. “The system can tell the difference between your finger and some wood so instead of cutting some fingers off you will just get a little lick.”

9B. The SawStop System will stop before cutting your finger off and will only give you a little scrape instead.

9C. This claim is factual.

9D. This claim is factual as it does stop when coming in contact with skin but may still give you a tiny cut. It however is not very persuasive as the idea that you can still be madly injured is a turn off for spending that much money.

10. Power Tool Product Reviewers

10A. “skin-sensing technology has been sorely needed in the portable saw category to protect pros and DIYers wherever they need to work.”

10B. This advanced technology has been needed for a long time to protect anyone working with table saws.

10C. This claim is opinion.

10D. While this claim is very persuasive as it says that this technology is needed to protect anyone working with a table saw there is little evidence to support this claim. This claim is logical and reasonable as people will relate to the idea that protection is needed and advanced technology for sensing skin would absolutely protect people.

11.Amputees

11A.  “Table saws are not forgiving … You have to live with this the rest of your life.”

11B. A man that had his thumb amputated due to a table saw states that the mistake made on a regular table saw is a mistake you live with for forever.

11C. This claim is an opinion .

11D. This claim is highly reasonable and logical as if you lose an appendage to a table saw you will never get it back. This claim however is not persuasive as it makes no statement that you should get use SawStop saws instead.