Category: E06: Safer Saws

1. Manufacturers
2. Customers
3. Consumer Safety Advocates
4. Injured Plaintiffs
5. Personal Injury Lawyers
6. News Reporters
7. Power Tool Product Reviewers
8. Amputees

1a. “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. The manufacturer is claiming that their saw is without an unreasonable doubt the best saw on the market, and now with the feature to detect contact on the skin, it has revolutionized this field.
1c. The claim is opinionated along with factual. The option is that their saws are the best on the market and the fact is the technology to detect contact on the skin.
1d. Due to the opinion, the manufacturer is obviously going to promote their saw. The technology however is factual and very beneficial. The manufacturer wants everyone who owns power saws to own this new technology as well.

2a. “To hold Bosch liable for not making a bad business decision that would cost them lots of money seems a bit unreasonable if not ludicrous.”
2b. Customers believe that manufacturers would lose a great amount of money for buying this technology. The amount of money spent would not be worth it when it comes to sales.
2c. This type of claim is 100% opinionated and could be debated as factual as well. The opinion is the loss of money but that could also be factual because the technology is expensive and the manufacturer already profits greatly on sales.
2d. This claim is accurate based on the opinion and fact because The technology is very costly.

3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.

4a. “Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws. About 4,000 of those injuries – or more than 10 every day – are amputations.”
4b. The quote from the injured plaintiff is true and factual. It goes in depth on how many individuals are injured due to table saws and implies that changes must be made.
4c. This is a factual claim because it gives statistics on the injuries caused by table saws annually.
4d. These claims are accurate, due to the statistics. It gives a visual on the problem with table saws and the injuries that it causes. Based on these statistics, injuries would most likely greatly decrease with the implication of the new technology.

5a.

5b.
5c.
5d.

 

1.Manufacturers

1A. “A table saw manufacturer that is not a member of PTI tried to license SawStop’s patent portfolio technology but negotiations failed when the manufacturer alleged that SawStop demanded unreasonable royalties in excess of what was originally being sought.”

1B. When a manufacturer tried to license SawStop the negotiation failed because requested royalties were unreasonable.

1C. The claim that the royalties were too high is purely an Opinion Claim.

1D. While this claim is not very strong as there is no facts that the royalties were too high. While he does have no entendre he does make reference to the fact that it is in excess as to what was originally sought making it reasonable to think that anything extra would be unreasonable.

2. Customers

2A.”Between the 8% fee and the additional hardware costs, your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625″

2B. Price in a regular table saw would go up 225 dollars due to expenses for hardware and the royalty fees.

2C. The claim that price would increase is factual but the claim on how much is not proven therefore is an opinion.

2D. While this factual claim does hold some truth that price will go up there is nothing to prove the point of how much therefore the amount is considered opinion and eliminates the fact trying to be proven.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4A. “The CPSC says that 67,000 people are injured every year using table saws, resulting in 33,000 emergency-room visits, 4000 amputations, and $2.3 billion spent on medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.”

4B. Every year there are many thousands of injuries due to table saws, resulting in not only large expenses but mental and physical injury.

4C. Overall this claim is factual.

4D. While this claim is factual because of the direct statistics there is no statistics on the last three mini claims maid therefore it is not highly persuasive and not well though out. This claim is logical as it uses statistical evidence.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

5A. “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.”

5B. The man injured by a regular table saw argues that his injury wouldn’t have happened if the Bosch company had not declined the safe technology of SawStop.

5C. This claim is purely opinion.

5D. The claim that this injury wouldn’t have happened if the big companies did not deny the safer technology is opinion because he does not know this for sure. This is a reasonable claim to make as he knows if the saw didn’t cut him he wouldn’t have gotten injuries which is also incredibly logical. This claim is also persuasive in the fact that his opinion is hard to argue with since there is no cases that the SawStop technology has ever not saved someone from injury.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6A. “SawStop cannot mitigate fractures and crushing injuries caused by work piece kickback or loss of vision caused by high velocity particles ejected by the saw blade.”

6B. SawStop can only eliminate injury by direct contact of the blade but not other injuries.

6C. The claim that SawStop only prevents contact injuries it is factual.

6D. This claim while it is a fact that it only prevents contact injuries, which is accurate it is also highly persuasive to prove the point that these aren’t as safe as they seem.

9.Steve Gass himself

9A. “The system can tell the difference between your finger and some wood so instead of cutting some fingers off you will just get a little lick.”

9B. The SawStop System will stop before cutting your finger off and will only give you a little scrape instead.

9C. This claim is factual.

9D. This claim is factual as it does stop when coming in contact with skin but may still give you a tiny cut. It however is not very persuasive as the idea that you can still be madly injured is a turn off for spending that much money.

10. Power Tool Product Reviewers

10A. “skin-sensing technology has been sorely needed in the portable saw category to protect pros and DIYers wherever they need to work.”

10B. This advanced technology has been needed for a long time to protect anyone working with table saws.

10C. This claim is opinion.

10D. While this claim is very persuasive as it says that this technology is needed to protect anyone working with a table saw there is little evidence to support this claim. This claim is logical and reasonable as people will relate to the idea that protection is needed and advanced technology for sensing skin would absolutely protect people.

11.Amputees

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

11B. A man that had his thumb amputated due to a table saw states that the mistake made on a regular table saw is a mistake you live with for forever.

11C. This claim is an opinion .

11D. This claim is highly reasonable and logical as if you lose an appendage to a table saw you will never get it back. This claim however is not persuasive as it makes no statement that you should get use SawStop saws instead.

 

 

1A Consumer Safety Advocates

Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.

1B The dangerous saws can cause serious and irreversible damage to the users and can  even impact the people around the users.

1C This claim is a cause and effect Claim

1D There is no doubt that a slip up with a saw can cause almost unimaginable pain to a person, which can also impact the injured person’s family depending on how severe the injury really was. This claim also then brings the reader to make the assumption, ‘well if they are so dangerous to so many people, then it should be safer if possible.”

2A Customer

Hmm… if I do buy a SawStop table saw, how much of that money spent will go towards the actual saw, and how much will go towards Gass’s lawsuits and forced licensure lobbying efforts?

2B The person is wondering whether the money that he purchased the SawStop Saw is for the actual quality of the saw or for the controversy that the lawsuits have caused

2C This claim is an Evaluation Claim

2D Even though the speaker is asking the question  rhetorically, the reader gets a sense that the questioned was already answered. This claim implies the idea that because Gass has to go through so many lawsuits to get his SawStop table to become common, the profit of the saw essentially goes to Gass for money to pay off lawsuits, past or future.

 

3A Manufacturers

When you’re cutting wood if you accidentally put your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you just get a little cut instead of taking some fingers completely off.

3B  The saw that they have produced will stop itself from accidently severely cutting the person’s hand.

3C This claim is a factual claim

3D This claim explains what the saw does and showcases the massive difference between their saw stop technology and the others. the former causing an insignifigant little nick while the latter potentially causing an amputation.

4A Injured Plantiffs

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.

4B The injuries that are caused by unsafe saws could have been prevented if the companies integrated the SawStop technology.

4C This claim is a proposal claim

4D This claim is worded in such a way that it must be true. If there was a lack of resistance and the companies, then the sawstop technology would be integrated and the situation of Wec injuring himself wouldn’t have occurred. This idea of it what if cannot be proven, but it also cannot be disproven; which makes the claim true but weak.

5A Personal Injury Lawers

Now, many people who have been injured are bringing table saw injury lawsuits against table saw manufacturers for failing to include the safety devices that would protect their customers from losing fingers, hands, arms, and suffering unfathomable pain.

5B People are now suing companies such as Bosch as the injuries that are caused by unsafe saws could have been prevented if the companies integrated the SawStop technology.

5C This claim is a factual claim

5D This claim showcases the huge presence of the danger of the saws with so many people and implies the need for for safer saws. With so many people suing, it further strenghtens the argument of why the sawstop technology would be so beneficial.

6A Industry Spokesperson

“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.

6B The option for the safe saw is available for people who insists on having a much safer saw then the competitors

6C This claim is a factual claim

6D This claim is simply stating that the saws are there if needed but the quote implies much more. Susan is essentially saying that if the customer really needs the SawStop technology, then the customer doesn’t need for other saws to have the technology because there is an option for the customer to get what they want. This brings an idea that they there is no need to force the other companies to integrate the technology as they can just simply buy the saw that does.

7A News Reporters

But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.

7C This claim is a factual claim

7D This claim gives the idea that the companies are at fault for not accepting the technology. It pushes the opinion that the other companies even had 8 years to “make the right decision” as the technology was even offered but they stupidly refused.

8A Government Official

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.

8C This is a factual claim

8D This claim has to be accurate based on the study . The amount of people that get injured and the “absurd” cost indicates that the issue of unsafe saws is a prevalent thing for the people and anything that would makes saws safer would lower these numbers.

Manufacturers

• “I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year.”

This claim tells us that a regular saw causes severe injuries every year.

• When you cutting wood, the blade carries the electric signal when the finger approaches to the blade the signal is changed because the human body is conductive. The blade will immediately stop.

• “It feel like it buzz or a tickle”

This is factual claim because in the video we see how when the finger is placed near the saw, the saw stops immediately with a slight vibration to the finger or a tickle.

This claim is accurate because when we watch the video we saw the experiment and how the technology works. The technology that was being used was brilliant due to how when the blade encounters with the human body at five thousand rpms energy it stops the module like crumple zone and car. The claim looks convincing because observers can see that this technology is legit product. On the contrary the claim, looks not as deserving because videos tend to be fake occasionally. It perhaps can be a setup where we do believe it can work.

Amputees/Customers

• “Try a $14 thousand bill for a missing finger and tell me how much you hate Mr. Gass.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

This claim is demonstrating of how losing a finger is greater cost than spending another saw blade. The differential value of cost is off the charts.

This claim is factual and opinion because it’s true losing a finger is too costly and medical bill will expensive. You would rather pay $100 extra than paying 20,000-40,000. Adding on, its opinion base to because there can be other saws similar to this technology where it can have no problems at all.

Customers 

• “But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.”

This claim demonstrates of how companies did not feel as confident to put Grass’ invention on shelves.

This is a factual claim.

We see the brilliancy of Grass’ technology but however the big name companies show signs of disbelief  because it far too great of technology to be worthy of that caliber kind. And trying to sell this product would be hard because consumers would not have a strong belief and uncertainty questions.

 

Steve Gass himself

• Steve Gass creates new saw called SafeStop, a saw reduces serious injuries where the saw stops when a finger is encounter with the saw.
•        Steve Gass experiments to prove that it works by using a hotdog as finger.
• Technology contains electric signal that contradicts with the human body.

This claim is prospal where he introduces his new technology.

Steve Gass proposed this idea and made it into a reality. A saw that decreases horrifying injuries than typical saw. Steve Gass used a hotdog to impersonate a finger to present viewers that the technology is legit. Furthermore, Steve Gass used his own finger to bring more attention to viewers that it this actually works with human finger, not just a hotdog.

Injured Plaintiffs

• “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.”

This claim shows how the saw can be dangerous in psychological way not just only a physical way.

The claim I feel is opinion based and accurate.

The reason why I feel this claim is opinion base because it can affect only some people in psychological way  instead of just physical. However, this claim can be accurate because this is also concerning of what this type of saw can do. The physical threat is horrifying et enough and now psychological is astonishing.

Personal Injury Lawyers

• “Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”

This claim specifies of how manufacturers have not experienced the SawStop even more than 10 years.

The claim is factual evaluation.

The claim is subpar it has the fact where it’s been around more than ten years and manufactures have not adopted it. But the question is what is all table saw manufacturers are adopting on if not SawStop. Are the manufacturers are investing their time on traditional saws with physical and psychological risks. And are they ignoring SawStop for a reason where they feel it’s the technology is too good to be true.

Government Officials 

Approximately 42,800 medically attended injuries annually during 2007–2008, rather than the 67,000 estimated in the CPSC ANPR.

This is claim is factual.

This claim is factual because this was case study of how many people were affected. There were a lot of cases that lead to look foward about SaferSaw. Thousands of people were getting hurt on daily basis. The numbers stand out because it similar how a small thing can cause so much havoc and can be debatable such as car accidents and etc of which is more dangerous.

Power Tool Product Reviewers

•  “Sawstop quality control is the best in the business. My Sawstop is superior in materials and build to any Delta or Powermatic I’ve used.”

This claim is to tell us that SawStop is valid saw that can protect people fingers. And seems this technology is worth it. The money is not the issue, its for the safety.

This claim is opinion base.

The claim is opinion base because it states one person saying that the product is marvelous. And it implies directly to him of how he is satisfied with the technology. However, this claim not as strong because its opinion base because others may prefer other saws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1A. Manufacturers

Have you ever cut wood with a blade and  accidentally  your hand get cut by it , if not then the blade will stop and actually you will get a nick instead of taken off your whole hand .

1B. Its fact that when running your hand through a blade, the blade will actually stop.

1C. The claim above is actually right and it proved by the video where I took this information from.  If you tried it without visual proof and actually seeing someone doing it , it will be messy . But because of the visual proof this cause it to be very persuasive.

2A. Customers

Bosch was hold liable for making a bad business decision that would cost them lots money seems a bit unreasonable .

2B. It would be a bad decision for Bosch to install the saw shop in all of its product , so they shouldn’t be held accountable for anything.

2C. one claim that seem accurate , ” Voluntary standards are working to enhance table  saw safety “.  This statement sees accurate because they are trying to make it better so no more accident which cost them money.

3A. Personal Lawyer

Even though saw safety had been around for many years, not all manufacturers that have table saw adopted it.

3B. It stated that Saw Stop  has been available and evaluating how much not all manufacturers have adopted it.

1A. Manufacturers

When you’re cutting wood if you accidentally put your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you just get a little cut instead of taking some fingers completely off.

1B. Another saw could cut your fingers off, but this saw will stop before you have the chance to accidentally do so.

1C. This is a factual claim saying if your put  your hand into the blade it causes it to stop.

1D. This claim is accurate and proved in the video it was taken from.  Because of the visual proof, it is logical and persuasive. the claim seems very normal and it does not seem very convincing at all there is no proof in the sentence.

2A. Customer

the technology works works well but the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws and even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them it still doesn’t click .

2B. This claims states that tool companies did not put the Saw Stop technology in their saws even though it works.

2C. This claim is a factual claim.

2D. This claim shows that even though Gass invented this technology that could possibly reduce table saw injuries he hasn’t convinced major tool companies that they need his technology. There are three factual claims in this one sentence.

3A. Manufacturers

A PTI JV has developed a flesh sensing technology that reacts faster to  humans flesh near the blade and also has a lower replacement cost of firing, and decreases injury to a greater degree when compared to the Saw Stop technology.

3B. This sentence has three claims. These three claims challenge three aspects of Gass’s technology.

3C. This is a proposal claim.

3D. This claim tries to show that they have created a faster reacting, cheaper, and safer technology than Gass. With this claim Gass’s technology could help the manufacturers.

4A. Injured Plaintiffs

“I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.”

4B. This sentence claims that manufacturers should worry about the people who are injured by their table saws instead of worrying about the cost of the saws.

4C. This is a opinionated claim.

4D. This claim gives a  prospective from a person injured by a saw without Saw Stop, someone who want’s companies to introduce Saw Stop to their table saws so they can prevent more injuries. Companies are worrying more about money and less about safety.

 

 

5A. Personal Injury Lawyers

Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.

5B. Some manufacturers have just looked past this SawStop technology as if it has been around for some time but some have took advantage of this tool.

5C. This is a factual evaluation, stating that SawStop has been available and evaluating how not all manufacturers have adopted it.

5D. This claim is okay overall, but it could be more specific. How many years has SawStop been around? Which manufacturers have adopted it? Which haven’t? For something factual it doesn’t actually give concrete facts, but what it does give is accurate. The lack of specificity makes it less persuasive than it could be, but it gets the point across.

6A. Steve Gass himself

I’m gonna put this hot dog on top of the board here, as if it was my thumb misplaced in the path of the blade.

6B. Steve Gass presented a demonstration of him showing exactly how the technology  works.

6C. This is a proposal claim.

6D. Steve Gass spoke about his demonstration. He explained how his technology worked. In a later demonstration he took it a notch further and used his actual finger to show his confidence in his technology.

7A. Government Officials

The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs.

7B. This is a proposal claim working for table saw safety.

7D. This is a very straightforward claim, but it doesn’t give specifics on how the benefits outweigh the costs. One can’t do that in one short sentence, so I can assume that the proof will appear later. It is logical to assume what the claim states; safety is usually the best option. The word “clearly” eliminates any doubts in the readers’ minds; this is the only way to go. It is persuasive in that way, giving the sense that the author’s way is the only way. It is very straightforward and convincing overall.

8A. 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.”

8B. This claim states that the cost of losing a finger is much greater than the cost of replacing broken pieces on a table saw.

8C. This is a factual claim.

8D. The cost of replacing a broken blade and cartridge is around $160, which is a big difference form the hundred thousands of dollars spent on medical bills after a table saw accident. It would be stupid for someone who would choose thousands of dollars when they only have to spend a couple hundred.

 

1a. Manufacturers believe that blade guards work if people actually use them.  Majority of injuries are reported when the blade guard is removed.  A claim was made that in order to make many different kind of cuts the blade guard must be removed to perform the procedure.

1b. Manufacturers implement that the cost of the saw saw would be too costly.  By them adopting their technology the saws will prevent the statistic found above from happening.  The Power Tool Industry also known as (PTI) believes that safer technology is too expensive and they are worried more about now rather than later.

1c. A new form of technology which was created by a coalition of saw manufacturers produced SawStop.  Unfortunately it is not available to be purchased by the consumer on the market.  They argue that it is expensive and no one is going to want to pay for the saw because it is pricey and table saw owners pay enough as it is already.

2a. Customers or consumers who are familiar with the Safer Saws believe that this new technology will prevent tens of thousands of injuries every year.

2b. This quote is making the assumption that if the SawStop table saws were to be put on the market, it would give the SawStop an advantage due to the price.

2c. Ryszard Wec was injured on the job due to a saw that did not have the Safe Saw technology included with it.  His claim was that this injury could have been prevented if he had been using a Safe Saw or something similar to it.

2d. This claim is attempting to give off the impression that the SawStop table saws would crippled the other competitors leaving them bankrupted or losing money. Nonetheless this is not accurate.  The SafeSaws are not selling.

3a. “Current table safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”

3b. This quote is declaring that they start looking out and trying to help the consumers.

3c. This is just an opinion from their standpoint.

3d. This claim mainly expressing its opinion without stating any real facts because they make claim about how it has been proven to be ineffective. However the quote doesn’t back the statement up with any results such as revealing test results from a survey that proves how ineffective they claim table safety standards to be.

4a.”Flesh detection and braking technology and user friendly blade guard(s) have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when its touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

4b. This quote is stating that the cause of the injury could have been avoided because there is technology available to prevent this injury.

4c. This is a proposal claim because they are introducing the idea that the there is safer technology that could prevent injuries . However  Bosch doesn’t use that technology and continues to use a different technology even though the safer technology has been around for years. By doing so they are trying to convince everyone that this injury could  have been avoided because if they had the safer technology this injury would not have occurred.

4d. This claim is trying to convince everyone that the Bosch company is to blame for Wec’s injury. In doing so they introduce the idea that the there is alternative technology that could’ve avoided the injury. However rather then using that technology Bosch uses a technology that doesn’t stop the blade.

5a. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws.”

5b. This quote is declaring that someone has been able to reduce the number of injuries dealing with table saws by an enormous amount with their invention.

5c. This is a opinion claim because the quote states a claim, however they do not support their claim with any evidence.

5d. This quote is mainly stating an opinion that did not have any evidence to back up.

6a. “This week some of the nation’s biggest power tool companies sent their executives to Washington. They come to argue against tougher safety mandates for so-called table saws, the popular power tools with large open spinning blades.”

6b. This quote stating the biggest power tool companies of the nation sent a representative to give their opinions on why they are against tougher safety laws enforced.

6c. This is a a judgmental claim because the quote is focusing on how the nations biggest power tools are coming to go against safety mandates for table saws. By doing so the quote is mainly portraying the power tools coming as a negative instead of just stating facts.

6d. This quote is focusing more so on the power tools coming to oppose the safety mandates for table saws rather than remaining neutral and stating the facts of the situation. Furthermore at the end of the quote, is a even more judgemental claim because the quote focuses only one part of what the power tool’s table saws do instead of stating everything the saw can do. In doing so, they are leaving information out so the audience will only see one side of a story rather than understanding everything about the power tool’s table saws.

7a. “What the industry saw as a problem was not the amputations and injuries occurring on their product, but the advent of a technology that could prevent those injuries.That was the problem we created.”

7b. The quote is declaring with sarcasm that the industry had a problem with the manufacturers and him because they were capable of better handling the situation compared to the industry which could not.

7c. This an opinion claim because the industry he quote is not stating any supporting evidence to prove this is a true statement. Rather the claim is an opinion because this quote only was coming from one side.

7d. This quote mainly focuses on the opinion of Gass because the quote only states his opinion and does not state the opinion of the opposing side. Furthermore, the quote doesn’t have any evidence to support his claim to make his claim a valid one.

8a. “People who have lost fingers, hand, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries. Those who 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 they are unable to work.”

8b. This quote is stating the different injuries associated with table saws have gone through and talking about how the effects of the injuries have impacted their lives.

8c. This is a proposal quote because the quote is trying to bring awareness to the injuries people deal with when they are using regular table saws. In addition to the injuries, they list effects the injuries have on their lives.

8d. This quote goes through the injuries people have endured with table saws. Following the injuries these people have, the quote states how these injuries have affected the lives of their consumers.

1) Manufacturer

“The combination of safety, unparalleled design and craftsmanship has made SawStop the #1 cabinet saw in North America.”

According to the manufacturer, the quality and design of StopSaw makes it a safe product but is anything which a blade spinning at 5,000 rpms ever completely safe?

2) Customer

“This was the best table saw on the market and the blade brake was a game changer destined to carve out a big chunk of market share for SawStop.”

Calling something “the best” anything is more often than not a matter of opinion. It also depends on the criteria by which you’re judging.

3) Industry Spokespeople

“They note that under some circumstances, SawStop can stop a blade without skin contact–such as when the blade touches conductive materials like metal or very wet wood.”

This assumes, as well as implies, that the saw operator would be foolish enough to put soaked wood or wood with nails/screws/staples in it through a saw. A seasoned wood worker knows that running materials like that through any saw can damage the blade and mechanism. If the consumer wasn’t aware of that then it doesn’t really matter what saw they use, the probability of being injured instantly becomes higher and they probably shouldn’t be using a saw to begin with.

4) Consumer Safety Advocate

“I believe that if we don’t see a voluntary standard soon, that we should look at making this product a part of our rule making so we can build that in as part of a mandatory standard.”

This quote comes from Inez Tenenbaum, the new chairman at the CPSC. It sounds like he’s assuming that others with the CPSC will agree with him. He’ll also most likely be facing major pushback from saw manufacturers.

5) Injured Plaintiff

“This technology is revolutionary.”

Is it really revolutionary? Is it involving or causing a complete or dramatic change? That you’re no longer at risk for losing another finger? You’re already short one, StopSaw isn’t bringing it back and that is what I’d consider revolutionary.

6) Personal Injury Lawyer

“The CPSC has the power to put an end to those unnecessary tragedies.”

This statement assumes that if the CSPC requires all saw manufacturers to use the StopSaw technology that no one would ever be seriously injured by a table saw again. They fail to take into account all the table saws already in the workshops of consumers. Unless these consumers elect to purchase brand new saws, they are still at risk for “tragedy.”

7) News Reporters

“Within a few thousandths of a second, the blade slammed to a stop.”

The blade did not stop itself, it was forced to stop by a massive chunk of aluminum. The phrasing of this claim is misleading on the amount of damage actually occurring when StopSaw’s flesh sensing technology is called into action.

1.) Manufacturers: Mission statement from Sawstop website

a.) “ 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.”

 

b.) The manufacturers of Sawstop are saying that their saw is the highest quality saw and can tell when it is in contact with skin and stops immediately.

c.) This claim is both factual and opinionated. It is undeniable that the saw stops after 5 milliseconds, becuase it has been tested and experimented upon in order to prove so. However, there is no evidence to back up that it is the “highest quality and best featured saw in their market segments.” that is the opinion of the Sawstop company.

d.) I do not doubt that Sawstop saws are high quality, but to say that they are the highest quality is the company’s attempt to persuade people into buying their saw. I believe by mentioning the speed in which the saw stops (when in contact with human skin) is a logical aspect that is persuading enough! For the most part, the information is believable and accurate; overall, the sentence is not that ridiculous of a tagline to be used in trying to sell their product.

2.) Customers: Testimony from Sawstop website

a.) “Some stacked material fell over and pushed my hand into the blade. SawStop saved my finger and allowed me to avoid a costly trip to the hospital.”

b.) An accident occurred in this contractor workshop, and the Sawstop blade prevented him from needing medical assistance.

c.) This is a factual and even categorical claim.

d.)The customer tells the story of how his hand got pushed onto the blade and why the Sawstop mechanism was triggered-this could be false, but as far as we are aware it is true. He says that the Sawstop blade “saved” his finger, which is an accurate statement because regular table saws are known for taking fingers completely off. He categorizes those serious types of injuries as costly and hospital worthy; which most sane people would agree with. The claim is accurate and persuasive in conveying the quality of the Sawstop blade.

3.) Power Tool Reviewer: Clint DeBoer, an Author from ProTool Review online magazine

a.) 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.

b.) Clint DeBoer, is arguing that the saw manufacturers are declining to use Sawstop technology, not to be unsafe, but to keep the price of entry level power saws affordable.

c.) This is an opinion claim.

d.) This is clearly DeBoer’s opinion, it is an informal sentence “No offense, but I don’t think…” in which he why he gives his thoughts on why Bosch did not utilize Sawstop technology. He is an author reporting on the drama occurring in Washington over these saws, it’s his purpose to give his opinion. I think this is a reasonable claim and can see the logic he uses to base his argument. The companies do not want to prevent entry-level consumers from being able to afford a saw, and if a safety requirement was to be set in place, the price of all saws would go up!

e.) I do think there are ulterior motives however, DeBoer does not address how the companies may just be avoiding the cost of licensing the technology takes away from the company’s profits.

4.) Injured Plaintiff: Ryszard Wec

a.) “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market”

b.) Wec is saying that the saw manufacturers are not adopting the Sawstop technology, in order to protect themselves from lawsuits and liability surrounding saws without the technology.

c.)This is an opinion claim.

d.) Potentially, there are many reasons why the company would not want to include the Sawstop technology, like prices for instance. However, what Wec says is reasonable, and a logical assumption to come to. The statement is not ridiculous and far-fetched, in fact it is quite believable, however; it is only one opinion.

5.) Industry Spokespeople: Power Tool Institute

a.) “Logic dictates that this increase in accident rate on SawStop saws is due primarily to a user’s decision to use the blade guard less frequently due to a “sense of security” in having the SawStop flesh-sensing technology on the saw.”

b.) The Power Tool Institute is saying that the assumed reason for the higher level of accidents in Sawstops is because people do not use the blade guard as a result of the safety promised by the Sawstop technology.

c.) This is an opinion claim.

d.) This claim was found under the title “Unintended Consequences [of the Sawstop]”. This sounds like a logical explanation, people feel more safe with the Sawstop and therefore feel as though the blade guard is pointless. This is not an unreasonable statement. However it is misleading because it makes itself sound like a proven statistic, when really it is just an assumption “logic dictates”.

e.) While this is a reasonable cause and effect idea, based on what I have read from other sources, a lot of consumers do not use the blade guard ever, Sawstop or not. The blade guard is apparently difficult to use for most types of projects, which sounds more reasonable than the conjecture provided by the Power Tool Institute.

6.) News Reporter: Myron Levin-Mother Jones

a.) “For more than a decade, toolmakers and the Power Tool Institute, their trade group, have defended the design of conventional table saws and their decision to not adopt SawStop or a similar safety device.”

b.) This claim is describing the current state of affairs with the Sawstop technology. The manufacturers do not want to adopt the Sawstop.

C.) For the most part, I see this as a factual claim.

d.) Based on all of the reading I have done for this assignment, the general consensus backs up this claim. Ever since Gass came out with Sawstop, the toolmaking companies have been refusing it, and the Power Tool Institute supports them. This is probably the most reasonable and agreeable statement I have chosen.

7.) Consumer Safety Advocates: Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

a.) “Last year, I called on the table saw industry to address this hazard through the voluntary standards process and work to prevent the needless injuries that occur each and every day. Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”

b.) The chairman said that he asked the table saw industry to make improvements in safety voluntarily, and they still have not made any serious improvements.

c.) I believe this is a factual as well as opinionated claim.

d.) It is fact that Tenenbaum asked the companies to comply voluntarily, but what exactly is a meaningful revision? The definition of what Tenenbaum calls a meaningful revision to the safety of saws, may be a very different definition to say, a manufacturer. However, the rest of the claim is still logical and believable.

8.) Amputee: Mike M.

a.) “It gets to your finances, with doctor bills, medications and things you can’t do any more to make money you used to make.”

b.) Mike is saying that the loss of his finger has put a financial burden on his life.

c.)This is an opinion claim.

d.) This claim is showing the effects of not having Sawstop, it can financially affect a person for the rest of their life. This claim was found on the Sawstop website and is used to persuade consumers into buying a safer saw. It is an accurate summation of the affects of an amputation.