1. Manufacturers

1A. “Blade guards must be removed for many kinds of cuts made on a table saw, so they cannot be used all the time.  Automatic safety devices on table saws, in contrast, can be used for virtually every cut of wood and other non-conductive material.”

1B. Blade guards are not functional functional for every different use of a saw, whereas automatic safety devices work effectively at all times.

1C. This is an evaluation claim because the usage of the two different types of safety methods are being compared and evaluated.

1D. This claim is very accurate. The only grey area is that it can be used for “virtually any cut of wood”. That leaves it a little bit open-ended as to how much you can do with it while remaining safe. Other than that it simply states the functionality of two different safety methods in relation to table saws. The manufacturer wanted it to be known that unlike other table saws with temporary blade guards, automatic safety devices work effectively all of the time.
2. Customers

2A. “He says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

2B. Automatic safety devices could have prevented the saw accident in the past from happening.

2C. This could be interpreted as a proposal claim because he is suggesting that had the technology been in use at the time, the accident would not have happened.

2D. This claim is accurate because the automatic safety technology is effective without fail. Therefore, had he been using the technology then, his mistake would not have resulted in an injury.
3. Industry Spokespeople

3A. “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” says Susan Young, who represents Black & Decker, Bosch, Makita and other power tool companies.

3B. Anybody has the option or ability to purchase SawStop

3C. This is a factual claim, simply because it is a fact that this product is available to anybody who desires to purchase it.

3D. This claim is true but also very broad. Saying that it is available in the marketplace does not disclose what marketplaces and it could be a broad term for having to order it online. Nevertheless, it is true because regardless of where it may be sold, it still is available for anybody to buy.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates

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, which was holding meetings on the issue this week.

4B. Somebody created the technology to prevent virtually all table saw related injuries.

4C. This is a simple causal claim because the effect of the technology created is stated.

4D. This claim is accurate because it is just going over factual things. It is true that somebody created this technology, and it is true that it significantly reduced injuries. Who it is that invented it and how the technology itself works are unclear in the claim, but that does not take away from the validity of what was stated.
5. Injured Plaintiffs

5A. “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.”

5B. A man stated that one company colluded with its competitors to keep automatic safety technology from being a required feature on table saws.

5C. This is clearly an opinion claim. The man is a disgruntled and injured plaintiff, and provided no evidence as to how there was collusion between companies in his claim.

5D. This claim makes no good point at all. It accuses companies of unjust acts with no evidence to support the claim. Also, what “competitors” are involved in the collusion? This claim is not specific enough and not supported by any facts.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6A.  “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.”

6B. The man argues that his traumatic injury would not have occurred, had the automatic safety technology on table saws not been rejected by major companies.

6C. This is an opinion claim because the man is just assuming that this technology would have prevented him from sustaining his injury.

6D. This claim is somewhat accurate. Given the rate of effectiveness of the automatic safety technology, the man probably would not have gotten hurt had in been in effect. Nevertheless, it is virtually effective almost all of the time. That phrasing leaves a little bit of room for error so assuming he would be safe is not fully accurate.
7. Government Officials

7A. “Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.”

7B. Approximately 67,300 people were medically treated for blade contact injuries in 2007 and 2008, with an associated injury cost of roughly $2.36 billion each year.

7C. This is a factual claim without a doubt. There are clear cut statistics in this claim that support the claim of the number of these accidents being a big issue.

7D. This claim is clear and precise in pointing out how many injuries are sustained from blade contact and the expensive repercussions as a result. There are statistics which are also cited as to where the information comes from. Numbers do not lie and it is very hard to disagree with statistically factual claims.
8. News Reporters

8A. “In other words, let consumers decide. Young says many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.”

8B. The assumption is that consumers will not be in favor of paying $100 t0 $300 extra for the SawStop technology.

8C. This claim is completely an opinion claim. The reporter is assuming people would not want to pay extra money for enhanced safety features. That is not something you can just assume until the product is made available to everybody and the consumers then speak for themselves.

8D. This claim is unclear and not supported. It is simply an assumption that anybody could make. There is nothing within this claim that can back this opinion up.

8E. I refute this opinion-based claim. I disagree with what is being said because to me personally, a few hundred extra dollars in exchange for guaranteed safety and all of my fingers is a deal that I would always take. I feel that more people would actually agree with that opinion because safety comes first, and operating a table saw without automatic safety technology is a true risk.