Category: E06: Safer Saws

Safer Saws–todayistheday

Grab bag of Claims

4A) Consumer product safety Commission

4B) “Each year, more than 67,000 workers and do-it-yourselfers are injured by table saws, according to the consumer product safety commission, resulting in more than 33,000 emergency room visits and 4,000 amputations.”

4C) Factual claim because it offers statistics on how many individuals are injured by table saws .

4D) The accuracy seems intact because they take exact injury statistics. The quality is good because it is coming from a safety commission, which gives the facts an enhanced trust.  It’s hard to dispute the reasonableness of facts because only the truth is offered; although it could be twisted.  Logic is emplace when relaying facts. This claim does its job at being persuasive.  It makes the viewer consider the number of injuries and realize the number of those hurt is alarming.

4E) I agree with this claim because I don’t have any evidence to dispute it.  I have no reason not to trust the facts that they provide in their claim.

Table Saw Injury Lawyer

6A) The Schmidt Firm, personal injury lawyers.

6B) Manufactures should face lawsuits because thousands of people are injured because they refuse to install Sawsafe technology.

6C) Opinion claim, because they state manufactures are at fault for injuries.

6D) Since it is an opinion claim it is hard to look at for accuracy since it is more fueled on feeling.  The quality of this opinion is shady because it is coming from lawyers who will make money if injured persons believe manufactures are at fault. The persuasiveness is moderate, it does hook you in but it doesn’t exactly justify.  But original claims don’t have to explain or justify just yet.

6E) I agree with the claim although it is opinion. I don’t trust it as much because it is made by lawyers trying to convince people to sue, so in turn they can make money as well.

Power Tool Industry

8A) salon.com as a news reporting site

8B) “The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could, by now, have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.”

8C) categorical claim, this places SawStop as good for helping people but bad at helping business.  It categorizes Sawstop for two different reasons.

8D) The accuracy is based on which you analyze SawStop.  Sawstop is good for helping people but it doesn’t get the chance to do so.  Quality is based on the reaction of the viewer.  This claim makes us take a step back and realize how twisted it is; SawStop could help thousands, but it’s kicked to the curb because it won’t make the industry thousands.  The provoking  of this thought makes this claim a persuasive one, because it makes us consider which category SawStop should belong in.

8E) I agree with this claim. As awful as it might be to consider the money in SawStop, industries will lose money.  But we also categorize SawStop as good because of all the people it could help.

Power Tool Industry

11A) Tom Corbett, a four finger amputee.

11B) “He still struggles to remember all of the horrible details, but he’s haunted by the fact that four of his fingers were severed.  “I just know within a second my fingers were on the ground,” he said.”

11C) I’m not sure what claim this would be but I’m thinking evaluation.  I think this is an evaluation claim because it evaluates and describes the situation that resulted in him being an amputee. He evaluates the shock and horror of suddenly becoming an amputee.

11D) The only accuracy that we can rely on is to trust Mr.Corbett is telling the truth. We hope the author made sure he really was an amputee resulting in a table saw accident.  The logic behind this claim is to give insight into the pain that not preventing table saw accidents causes.  This in turn gives the claim good persuasive qualities.  It relies on the emotion behind an amputee’s account and what kind of emotions that would stir inside the reader.

11E) I agree with this claim, although there is no easy way to prove Mr. Corbett is a real table saw amputee. The claim does its job to persuade us that table saw accidents can devastate lives.

Defending Table Saw safety

3A) Table Saw Companies

3B) “They’ve argued that injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents—including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—is exaggerated. ”

3C) This is an opinion claim.  Table saw companies are arguing the legitimacy of facts due to the money making factor in them.

3D) The accuracy is not present, we don’t know why they would believe this.  The injury numbers and the money lose resulting from them, was totaled.  But the power tool industry companies doubt the truth behind these numbers.  The logic can somewhat be detected, it would make sense from the industries to try and smear the facts presented to make themselves look better. The persuasiveness is also represented, the goal of any claim is to make you question.  With this claim you consider what the industries are stating.

3E) I personally think the industries are just trying to save their own behinds.  They are making claims without any thought or reasonableness behind them.  Regardless, it does make you weigh both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safer Saws — Splash305

1A: Manufacturers- The saw has a feature that allowes the blade to stop when the sensor attched to the blade picks up the detection of flesh. It stops fast enough to prevent any sort of injury.

1B: The saw has a feature that detects flesh and can prevent injury.

1C: Factual claim, it states the fact that the saw stops fast enough to prevent injury.

1D: This claim provides us with logic in wanting to change the ways of wood working to provide people with safer saws. It reassures us that with this technology people can avoid serious injury.

11A: Amputees- “My father put his hand through the table saw and it was terrible. It was an accident on an old saw that was caused by a lack of safety features (anti-kickback)”.

11B: If the saw had the safety feature attached then this person would still have their hand.

11C: Proposal claim, if he would have had the safety feature installed there would have been no injury.

11D: This claim provides us with logic, saying if we want to continue to have both hands it is worth spending the money for a safety feature.

2A: Customers- “I note the people opposed to sawstop don’t own one. I own 2. Jobsite and contractor. Used professionally, and I won’t let anyone on a jobsite use another saw.”

2B: People that don’t own sawstop say it isn’t worth it and saws can be safe if people pay attention but that is just because they don’t have one.

2C: Opinion claim, he thinks sawstop is the best and safest saw to have where as others find it unnessesary.

2D: This claim provides accuracey in the opinion being stated that safe saws may not be for everyone but when used they do what is told.

10A: Power Tool Product Reviewers- ” I care about the fact that there is a technology out there that can protect me and others who will not always be entirely 100% focused 100% of the time.”

10B: Not everyone is going to be fully focused all of the time, so we need the technology that is going to protect us when we are not.

10C: Evaluation claim, he is saying that the use of this technology will come in handy when peopl lose focus which is very common to do.

10D: This claim provides logic in letting us know that not everyone will be fully alert at all times of the day, and when they aren’t it is not to have advanced technology to bet there for our protection.

12A: Steve Gass Reviewers- “The more I see from Sawstop, and the more I hear about Gass, the more I hate them. The issues with Sawstop’s lack of quality control and their horrendous company in general is why I stay away from that brand at all costs.”

12B: His opinion of Steve Gass is the reason he dislikes the sawstop product and finds them to be a waste of time.

12C: Opinion claim, he lets his opinion of Steve Gass get in the way of seeing the reasoning behind this product and its safety.

12D: This claim provides persuasivness in trying to get people to think Steve Gass isn’t a good guy and therefore getting them to dislike his products.

Safer Saw–collegegirl

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.

Safer Saws- alaska

Table Saw Amputation Lawyer

6A: In April 2017, about 400 Black & Decker 10″ portable table saws were recalled because the metal fold-up stand can collapse unexpectedly and cause injuries.

6B:The 400 Black & Decker portable table saw was recalled because it caused injuries due to the fold-up feature.

6C: This is a factual claim because it gives evidence.

6D: The 400 Black & Decker definitely should have been recalled as it was for those reasons.

Power tool industry too powerful to regulate?

8A:  But this saw was equipped with a safety device called SawStop that allowed the blade to distinguish between wood and flesh, and to stop fast enough to prevent serious harm. Sure enough, the blade came to a dead stop in about three one-thousandths of a second, leaving the dog with only a minor nick

8B: Using a hot dog they demonstrated that the safety device will stop if it senses a finger or something like a finger.

8C: This is a factual claim because they tested the safety device to see if it worked and it did.

8D: The safety device called SawStop worked like Steve Glass made it to work.

Saws Cut Off 4,000 Fingers a Year. This Gadget Could Fix That.

8A: Each year, more than 67,000 workers and do-it-yourselfers are injured by table saws, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (PDF), resulting in more than 33,000 emergency room visits and 4,000 amputations.

8B: More than 67,000 workers and do-it-yourself are injured by the table saw.

8C: This is a factual claim because it gives evidence.

8D: The table saw is very dangerous especially if you arent aware of you hand or fingers.

10 amputations a day: the need for a safer table saw

4A: 10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.

4B: The Comsumer Product Safety Commission had to approve of the SawStop and it was taking long to do so.

4C:  This is an opinion. The women who wrote this believes that the SawStop is an affordable and available piece of equipment.

4D: I agree with her. I think this is an affordable and available piece of safety equipment.

Table Saw Facts at a Glance

3A: At one time SawStop approached table saw manufacturers offering to license its patent portfolio technology, demanding an 8% royalty on the retail value of all table saws with the technology in addition to other terms that were onerous and not related to table saw safety.

3B: The SawStop company went to manufactures to try and have them make and sell the safety equipment.

3C: This is a factual claim because it gives evidence that the SawStop company did this.

3D: The SawStop company demanded an 8% rolalty on the retail value of all table saws with this new technology.

Safer Saws-Flyerfan1974

1A. Manufacturer

The saw was equipped with a safety device called SawStop that could distinguish between wood and flesh and then stop the blade fast enough to prevent a gruesome injury.

1B. The saw is equipped with a safety device that prevents injury.

1C. Factual Claim- Saw stop preventing injuries is a fact.

1D. The claim provides logic to persuade the reader that this device may change the world of woodworking. If this device prevents “gruesome injury” then people will want to buy it. No one likes gruesome injuries like losing fingers.

3A. Bosch Spokes person

“The new Bosch ReaXX saw will have a completely different blade brake tech that will allow for 2 braking events before the cartridge has to be replaced. It also won’t destroy your blade.”

3B. The tool company Bosch is stating how their product is will be way different than the SawStop, created by Steve Gass.

3C. Opinion Claim- Bosch is saying how their product will differ from Gass’s, but there is no factual evidence to prove this.

3D. This claim provides logic that their product is was different from the one created by jobs. If their product is slightly different, then they will not be sued. The claim is reasonable, the product can be different. However, the accuracy is poor due to Gass’s product being released before theirs. He spent his entire life on this product, and finally releases it, then after this Bosch suddenly has the same idea only slightly different.

6A. Personal Injury Lawyer

“10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.”

6B. This claim is stating that it is unacceptable that people are being injured when a safety tool is sitting around doing nothing.

6C. Opinion Claim- This claim is opinion because other might not think the SawStop is a reliable, affordable, available product.

6D. This claim uses logic to get its point across. Why are people being amputated every day when there is perfect tool to prevent this sitting on the bench? This claim is very accurate, 10 amputations a day can be stopped if the SawStop is implemented. It is affordable and ready.

9A. Steve Gass himself

“They contend that Bosch, and their new ReaXX table saw, which also features flesh-detection and blade brake technology, is infringing on SawStop’s patented inventions.”

9B. Steve Gass feels that Bosch completely ripped off the idea he has spent his whole life creating.

9C. Opinion Claim- This is a more opinioned claim because no one can actually know if Bosch stole his idea, there is no factual, hard evidence. If Bosch created a similar product then some can say it is a copy while others can say it is not a copy.

9D. This claim provides hard evidence like Bosch’s saw has the same flesh detection technology that Steve Gass’s Saw Stop has. The claim also says that the ReaXX saw is infringing on the SawStop’s patented inventions. This is reasonable considering that the ReaXX contains the same technology as the SawStop which has a patent.

11A. Amputees

“I lost a finger and half the use of my hand in a table saw accident the cost of a cartridge a new blade is well worth having that safety.”

11B. This claims states that people would rather buy a new saw than lose a finger.

11C. Factual Claim-Everyone would not want to trade a finger for 60 dollars.

11D. This claim provides a logical explanation, a finger is way more important than a $60 blade. No one would pick less than $100 over a finger or hand.

Safer Saws – ChandlerBing

Table Saw Amputation Lawyer

6A: The Schmidt Firm, a personal injury law firm, writes on their website, “…manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw). 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: Manufacturers refused to use SawStop technology on their products because of the “unreasonable” price increase of each table saw which would be a mere $100 compared to the millions of dollars lost in a single lawsuit.

6C: This is a factual claim because of the evidence listed.

6D: The SawStop technology (which can save 4,000 amputations per year) would cost table saw manufacturers around $100 per table saw to implement this technology. This does not bode well for these companies because they do not want to lose profit. In one case, a man who lost his finger in a table saw incident filed a lawsuit against a table saw manufacturer because it is the companies duty to prevent injuries of any kind. That company lost $1.5 million in the lawsuit rather than $100 to provide the SawStop safety feature.

Feds Might Force Table Saw Makers to Adopt Radically Safer Technology

1A:  Table saw manufacturers claim “If the [Consumer Product Safety Commission] makes the technology mandatory for table saws, that could give [Stephen] Gass a legal monopoly over the table-saw industry…”

1B: Manufacturers are worried that if the CPSC mandates SawStop tech for all table saws then Gass would have a monopoly over the industry until his patents expire.

1C: This is an opinionated claim formed by manufacturers.

1D: It is true that Gass’ invention is protected by legal patents which means that no one can create and implement the same idea to their table saws without facing legal ramifications. This could result in Gass jacking up the prices of this safe technology due to lack of competition.

1E: Gass’ oldest patents expire in the year 2021 which means other companies can design similar concepts of the SawStop feature. Also, Gass’ aim is to save people from suffering amputations and possibly living without fingers for the rest of their lives.

Saws Cut Off 4,000 Fingers a Year

11A:  Tom Corbett, a contractor who severed four fingers in an incident regarding a table saw states, “Back in the early 70s and 80s before there were airbags there was people getting killed ridiculously in car crashes and all of a sudden they have to have airbags in them they have to have safety equipment. I don’t see any differences for the saws.”

11B: Corbett compares the use of airbags and SawStop technology.

11C: This is a persuasive claim.

11D: Corbett emphasizes how imperative airbags are for automobiles. Before 1968, cars did not have mandatory airbags and the risk of fatality was evident. When airbags were deemed mandatory for all automobiles, fewer people were dying from car accidents. Corbett mentions that there is no difference when it comes to saw safety. He knows that every saw should have this technology. Corbett’s life changed forever because of the lack of modern safety technology.

SawStop Inventor Steve Gass Defends the Latest Tablesaw Verdicts

9A: “I think we could argue about whether the law is wrong if you don’t believe that manufacturers should have an obligation to make their products reasonably safe…”

9B: Steve Gass believes that the law should require power tool manufacturers to make their products as safe as they possibly can.

9C: This is an opinionated claim.

9D: Manufacturers absolutely should use the technology that is available on the market to provide the safest product they can create. Companies must always keep their consumer’s best interest in mind when developing new tools or updating old ones. This will prevent the 4,000 amputations yearly and save companies millions in lawsuits.

Power Tool Industry too Powerful to Regulate?

12(Shop Owner)A: Gerald Wheeler, a wood shop owner explains the cost of injuries, “Not long before, two of his employees had been maimed within a few weeks of each other. Wheeler felt awful about the injuries, the loss of two good workers, the $95,000 in medical bills, and the doubling of his workers-compensation rates.”

12B: Wheeler speaks for most shop owners when he explains the struggle of paying so much money for compensation for something that could have easily been prevented.

12C: This claim is based on facts that can be backed up by statistics therefore it is a factual claim.

12D: It is extremely costly for shop owners to pay workers comp to those who have accidentally been involved in an accident at work. Wheeler also stats that he paid $95,000 in medical bills for two injured workers. He also must pay them their rate every week even though they are not working. Wheeler also had to find workers to replace the skilled ones that he already had. All of this could have been prevented if Wheeler obtained the SawStop tech and paid a little extra to save him thousands of dollars.

Safer saws- Princess45

10a. ”I have not lived a single day without regretting that accident,” Tom wrote. “If your device prevents even one person from going through what I have gone through, it is a world class accomplishment.”

10b. Tom doesn’t want anyone else to go through what he went through.

10c. Opinion

10d. This is a reasonable claim, he is trying to prevent people from being in a situation that he is in. Clearly wants the best for people working in the same industry as him.

4a.  Consumer Safety Advocates state, “Saws cut off 4,000 fingers a year. This gadget could fix that.”

4b. Explains what this new product can do and how it can minimize the amount of amputations a year,

4c.  Opinion

4d. This claim is an opinion because we might not know or believe that this saw will prevent a certain amount of injuries

11a. An amputee says, “I lost a finger and half the use of my hand in a table saw accident the cost of a cartridge a new blade is well worth having that safety.”

11b. The amputee explains that the cost of the cartridge is well worth having the safety instead of ending up like him

11c. opinion

11d. An opinion because he is saying that the expense will always be well worth preventing his accident

2a. Customers says “I note the people opposed to sawstop don’t own one. I own 2. Jobsite and contractor. Used professionally, and I won’t let anyone on a jobsite use another saw.”

2b. the people opposed to saw stop don’t own one

2c. opinion

2d. The claim is true because how can you judge something you have never used.

Safer Saws- The admiral1

1A. The SawStop Official website claims “When skin contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive”

1B. When skin contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive

1C. This is a factual claim, giving inside on the technology used in the device

1D. I think this is a pretty reasonable claim. It is factual because of the demonstration they showed on the website.

1E. There is no reason to refute this claim

2A. A claim made a customer by the name of Per S. from New jersey states “Folks if I could find fault somewhere, I wouldn’t hesitate to let you know.”

2B. This claim is stating how well the saw is designed, from every aspect.

2C. This is an opinion claim made by Per. His opinion was that the saw is the best in the world, which could vary from person to person.

2D. This is a reasonable claim. This is a great saw in my opinion, having worked with a few different table saws in my day.

2E. There is no reason to refute this claim.

3A. Susan Young, an industry spokesperson from Bosch states “”SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it”

3B. This claim is saying that the technology is out there for those who want to purchase it, and should not be put on other companies to provide the technology.

3C. This is a factual claim made by Young, it is on the market for others to buy if they want it, but also an opinion because without saying it, in her opinion not all saws should have to be made like the SawStop

3D. This claim is reasonable. There should be a variety of different saws for different users that want different things.

3E. There is no reason to refute this claim

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

11B. David had his thumb amputated because of a table saw accident, so he explains how unforgiving the machine is, and how he has to live with no thumb for the rest of his life

11C. This is an opinion based claim, because as funny as it sounds some people might not have the same opinion as David does.

11D. This is a reasonable claim. I know I saw a kid in my wood shop class have his finger sawed off freshman year, and it was not a pretty sight.

11E. There is no reason to refute this claim.

12A. Steve glass, the inventor of the SawStop, put his finger to the test, and put his finger to the saw blade.

12B. This was not words as a claim, but he was so confident in his product that he put his own finger to the test.

12C. I do not know what kind of claim this would be, maybe an action claim if that exists, because he is making a statement with his actions and not his words.

12D. I think this is a reasonable claim, and a pretty good advertising technique. He is so confident in his product that he was willing to put his own finger on the line just to prove how well, the technology actually works.

12E. There is no reason to refute this claim.

Safer Saws – theintern

Manufacturers

1A. “The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when it is touched by human flesh.”

1B. Theres a flesh detection technology that detects if human flesh is near the blade which then stops instantly.

1C. This is a factual claim because it is a personal testimony by the manufactures.

1D. There is no real evidence determining that this technology actually stops instantly, or reviews from real people who own this tool and have actually tried it.

Customers

2A. “Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.”

2B. This claim states that after a discussion with their competitors they still continued to sell their dangerous tools.

2C. This statement is a factual claim because of the verified information Bosch tools told.

2D. The claim persuades me to think that Bosch could’ve had a safer tool for their consumers but they decided not to and continued to sell dangerous saws hoping that their consumers wouldn’t notice. I don’t understand why only table saws are dangerous and not the rest of the tools.

Injured Plaintiffs

5A. “The bringer of the suit is essentially claiming that 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 claims states that Bosch could have prevented these lawsuits if and only if they did not reject against safety technology.

5C. This statement is very opinionated because the bringer is biased about the Bosch’s decision of not securing the safety of their consumers.

5D. The claim is very biased from a user’s perspective of a bad experience the user had. The claims state that Bosch could of prevented these incidents but theres not enough statistic evidence showing the percentage of people injured.

Steve Gass Himself

9A.  “petition from Gass, engineers at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a “rulemaking process” that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws.”

9B. This claim explains how Gass himself recommended that the government make rules towards table saws and make sure that they provide more safety.

9C. This claim is more so a proposal because Gass suggested ideas to the government without the government asking for them.

9D. Theres not evidence of the petition succeeding or if the government ever agreed to it. Gass thinks he knows best but does he? This claim can be arguable.

Power tool product reviewers

10A. “Existing Underwriters Laboratories document ANSI/UL 987 includes provisions for maintaining safe distance from saw blades and instructions for proper use.”

10B. This claim clarifies that under this document “ANSI/UL 987” there are safety regulations to be followed.

10C. This statement is a proposal claim because it suggests the consumers to think twice before standing to close to the blades.

10D. The claim is reasonable and gives a precaution that users should consider. However it contradicts the product tools purpose of it being safe and a document should not be stating the danger there is.

Safer Saws- Yoshi

  • (1) 8A. Pro tool reviews wrote, “On top of all this, in terms of table saw safety, kickbacks are certainly more dangerous, and cause far more injuries each year, than cutting off fingers. Currently new advances are already being implemented through UL approval guidelines (new for 2010) to incorporate these safeguards.”

8B. Kickbacks cause more injuries over cutting fingers

8C. Evaluation claim

8D. The claim can be factual, but has no source to prove it. The writer says kickbacks cause more injury than someone accidentally cutting their finger off.

8E. I disagree with it, because they didn’t add a source to prove it. I myself have never heard of someone getting injured by a kickback, but I sure have heard a lot more people cutting their finger off from a saw.

  • (2) 4A. Roy Berendsohn said “Basically, the Bosch tool uses a sensing circuit that’s similar to the one SawStop patented years ago, but not identical. Where SawStop’s technology jammed the saw by running a piece of aluminum into it, wrecking the blade, Bosch’s cartridge system can save the saw blade. Whether Bosch’s design is too similar is a matter for the courts.”

4B. Both the Bosch tool and the SawStop use different technology to stop the blade and they are not the same. Berendsohn is basically saying there was no reason for the two to go to court because they are nothing alike.

4C. Opinion Claim

4D. The claim that they shouldn’t go to court is a opinion claim.

4E. I believe the two should go to court because the designs are fairly similar, and SawStop was presented to Bosch but they denied him.

  • (3) 8A. Written by Myron Levin in Mother Jones, “according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (PDF), resulting in more than 33,000 emergency room visits and 4,000 amputations. At an average cost of $35,000 each, these accidents lead to more than $2.3 billion in societal costs annually including medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.”

8B. “At an average cost of $35,000 each, these accidents lead to more than $2.3 billion in societal costs annually including medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering”

8C. Factual Claim

8D. The claim states how much money is spent with people that get injured with saws.

8E. I agree with this claim because there is evidence backing it up.

  • (4) 1A. SawStop Website says, “Our saws, besides being the highest quality and best featured saws in their market segments, feature the ability to detect contact with skin and stop the blade in less than 5 milliseconds.”

1B. “besides being the highest quality and best featured saws in their market segments”

1C. Opinion Claim

1D. This claim states that SawStop is the best quality and the best brand of saws in the market.

1E. I disagree with this claim because I think Bosch has a better quality saw. I think the fact that Bosch’s saw is reusable after it stops makes it better.

  • (5) 6A. An injury Lawyer claims, “The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple. They run an electrical current through the saw blade that is attached to a current monitor. When the blade is cutting wood (a poor conductor of electricity) the electrical current in the blade remains constant. If the blade touches flesh (a relatively good conductor of electricity) the current in the blade drops.”

6B. “The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple.”

6C. Opinion Claim

6D. The lawyer claims that, the saws are very simple.

6E. I don’t think they are simple, I actually think they are very confusing. I still don’t understand how the blade even stops that fast.