1a. Members of the Power Tool Institute claim that “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”
1c. This is a factual claim.
1d. The claim argues that the majority of saw injuries come from kickback and not contact with the blade. Assuming this is true, one may be persuaded to think that perhaps we’re focusing on the wrong thing. Kickback should be fixed before using SawStop. I consider this illogical because SawStop technology already exists. The fact that kickback occurs more often than contact with the blade, doesn’t eliminate the fact that contact with the blade still happens. I’d consider this a quantity over quality claim.
2a. “Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625. Your entry level table saws would all but disappear.” Quote from the author who is also a consumer.
2c. This is a causal claim.
2d. The claim that higher prices would eliminate entry level saws seems reasonable. A $100 saw could potentially cost $200 or more. I wouldn’t consider that a consumer-friendly or entry level saw. The claim can persuade a reader to side with an average consumer quite easily. Simple but effective claim.
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.
3c. This is a factual claim.
3d. The claim argues that clearly not every consumer wants to purchase SawStop. The option to purchase one is given to everyone. While true, it doesn’t cover everyone. Yes a consumer can be safer if they choose to, but what about employees. You can be protected at home, but not at work? That seems illogical to me.
4a. The $753 benefit per table saw is many times greater than the $100 cost per saw to equip table saws with automatic safety technology, which means this safety requirement would be very cost-effective.
4c. This is a causal claim.
4d. The claim attempts to persuade the audience that the $100 investment in SawStop actually pays for itself. Using SawStop cuts down on lawsuits, paid time off, etc, thus saving $753 on average per table saw. People against SawStop frequently argue against the added cost of using it. Showing that $753 is actually saved, makes the reader question the opposition’s logic. It’s reasonable to believe that SawStop is cheaper in the long run when you consider it’s benefits.
5a. Ryszard 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.”
5c. This is a causal claim.
5d. The claim argues that Bosch and competitors are accountable for Wec’s injuries. The mention of permanent and “traumatic injury” draws the audience emotionally. Claiming that the technology was fought against and ultimately rejected, makes Bosch and its competitors look like bad guys. If it weren’t for these “bad guys” and their opposition to safety, Wec may not have gone through what he did. Given the success of SawStop, it’s reasonable to believe Wec would have actually been spared.
6a. The Table Saw Injury Lawyer claims that “Those who lack medical insurance suffer an unfathomable amount of pain, multiple surgeries, and a bill that they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.”
6c. This is a causal claim.
6d. Those without medical insurance seem to suffer more than those without insurance. On top of pain and having to endure surgeries, they get a bill that they may never pay off. It’s not hard to imagine someone losing a hand being left jobless. It’s reasonable to assume that the bill for someone without insurance would be considerably high, and impossible to pay without a job. Simple but effective display of people effected by lack of safety.
7a. Tenenbaum says she would prefer for the industry to work out a way to license this safety brake technology and adopt it voluntarily.
7c. This is a factual claim.
7d. It’s unclear why she prefers the conflict to be resolved internally. The fact that she prefers this, signals to me that she perhaps has other plans in mind. She at least acknowledges that something should be done.
8a. Carpenters lose their livelihoods. Many people never recover. But what’s most striking is that all of those accidents are preventable.
8c. This is a causal claim.
8d. All of the saw accidents ruining the lives of various people are preventable. Perhaps misleading, as other injuries such as kickback can be dangerous accidents, and aren’t prevented by the use of SawStop. A great example of people who don’t recover are carpenters. No hands/fingers, even mangled hands/fingers can render a carpenter useless. Having the technology to prevent such accidents from occurring is illogical and very unreasonable. A quality and for the most part accurate claim.