Consumer Safety Advocates
4A. National Consumer League
“Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents”
4B. Statistically shows that ten people get their fingers chopped off from power saw accidents.
4C. Factual claim because it is showing statistics.
4D. This claims provides the reader with the necessary statistic regarding people who work with power saws. This claim is reasonable because again, its statistics.
Amputees
11A. Frank Oslick (suffered from and injury caused by a power saw)
“If your device prevents even one person from going through what I have gone through it is a world class accomplishment.”
11B. Oslick believes that if the safer saw will prevent others from suffering from an injury in which he suffered from, then it will be a great accomplishment.
11C. Opinion based claim.
11D. The logic behind this claim is to tell a victims opinion regarding the safer saw. Oslick suffered from a huge cut in his arm which led to him having to get stitches.
Personal Injury Lawyers
6A. Amputation Lawyer
“The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple.”
6B. Claim made is that the author believes that the makings of the safety saw device is simple and easy.
6C. Opinion based claim.
6D. The logic behind this claim is to make it seem as if the machine is very simple to make. Which leads to the reason for why it should be offered to every machinery company.
Industry Spokesperson
3A. Clint Deboer
“No offense, but I don’t think this is a move by Bosch (or any other tool manufacturer for that matter) to prevent safety devices, but simply a move to prevent the unintended consequences of adding mandatory safety devices that would, in some instances, double the price of entry level power saws.”
3B. Debar makes this claim to show his opinion. He thinks that manufacturers did not create the safety machine to prevent safety devices but to prevent what could happen in the future when manufactures actually have to add mandatory safety devices to their products.
3C. Opinion based claim.
3D. Logic behind this claim is for the author to explain the price of mandatory safety devices would been more expensive compared to them not being mandatory.
Injured Plaintiff
5A. “If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses.”
5B. This claim is showing what could have happened is Osorio was using a safety saw. Then, it compares it to what actually did happen and the expenses and life-long injuries he suffered from because of the saw not protecting his fingers.
5C. Factual claim because it’s giving number to prove the cost of the procedure.
5D. The logic behind this claim is to show the readers what happened to someone when they were not using the safety saw.
Rowan Counterintuitive 
This is solid work, CollegeGirl, and a good start. But a word about claims. You have divided the Claim Universe into Fact and Opinion. Nuance is available. For example.
“Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents”
“Ten people have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents” is a Factual claim, but that little dig, “according to the CPSC’s own data,” is an Insinuation Claim, a type of Evaluation Claim, that suggests that the CPSC would rather not admit that so many amputations occur. It’s a spin provided by the author of the sentence that does two things. 1) It identifies the CPSC as an agency that would like to accomplish fewer amputations. 2) It strengthens the force of the factual claim by pointing out that it comes from a source that would rather minimize than exaggerate the number, like saying, “even the driver estimated his consumption as eight alcoholic drinks in the course of a two-hour concert.”
What other claim types can you identify to nuance your Opinion Claims?
Revise if you like and let me know when you do.
LikeLike