3. Power Tool Product Reviewers
https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit/3806/
3A. “However, the manufacturing costs, coupled with licensing fees, make this an almost ridiculous prospect.”
3B. The author of this article, Clint DeBoer, claims that it is ridiculous to expect a company to employ safer technology that would significantly increase the price of their merchandise.
3C. This quote makes an evaluative claim. The author considered the additional expenses added to the overall price of the saw because of the safety adjustments to the saw. He then made the evaluation that it would not be worthwhile for the companies to make those adjustments.
3D. This claim is hard to refute. Undoubtedly, the safety adjustment would significantly increase the cost of the saw, which may harm the company’s profit.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers
https://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-amputation-lawyer/
6A. “Recently, a man who filed a table saw amputation lawsuit was awarded $1.5 million after the court found that table saw manufacturers were liable for not including the safety feature.”
6B. “Recently, a man who filed a table saw amputation lawsuit was awarded $1.5 million after the court found that table saw manufacturers were liable for not including the safety feature.”
6C. This quote makes a factual/quantitative claim.
6D. This quote cannot be disputed because it was an actual occurrence.
8. News Reporters
https://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/
8A. “Before SawStop, this fact alone would have made a successful lawsuit unthinkable.”
8B. The author claims that before the invention of SawStop, if saw guards were not used and there was a resulting injury, a lawsuit would be unsuccessful.
8C. This is an evaluative claim. After considering previously successful and unsuccessful lawsuits, the author noted that the company would be able to deflect any injury-related charges if the person filing the lawsuit had failed to use the safety guards.
8D. This claim is hard to refute. Major companies have many resources at their disposal to fight lawsuits. Also, probably even the most dim-witted lawyer would be able to think of the argument that if a person does not utilize safety guards, the injury is their fault. Only the invention of SawStop presents the new argument that better safety measures could have been taken, yet weren’t.
11. Amputees
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/table-saw-sawstop-safety-finger-cut/
11A. “He testified that after the blade sliced into his hand, he began running around in circles in the yard, screaming in pain and terror.”
11B. This claim is referring to Brandon Stollings, who cut off two of his fingers while he was in the process of installing flooring.
11C. This is a factual/evaluation claim. It paraphrases Stollings’s testimony.
11D. This claim is hard to refute because I was not present when Stollings’s injury took place nor when the trial took place, and cannot say for certain whether or not that was his testimony.
9. Steve Gass himself
https://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/
9A. “‘If the manufacturers had to pay the cost of those injuries,’ Gass said, ‘they would have adopted technology like this within months of the time they heard about it instead of looking for excuse after excuse to delay for year after year.'”
9B. “‘If the manufacturers had to pay the cost of those injuries,’ Gass said, ‘they would have adopted technology like this within months of the time they heard about it instead of looking for excuse after excuse to delay for year after year.'”
9C. This is a causal claim. If A. the manufacturers had to pay the costs, then B. They would have adopted new technology.
9D. This claim cannot be proven unless manufacturers are forced to pay the costs of the injuries, and it results exactly as Gass claimed it would. Until then, this claim can be dismissed as one man’s opinion.
Rowan Counterintuitive 