Category: E06: Safer Saws

1a)  If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?

1b) Table saws are dangerous, they can be safer,  they should be, we need to make them safer if they are capable.

1c) This is a proposal claim.  The author is giving an opinion in which many others would agree with.

1d) The claims being made in the first sentence are very substantial.  Table saws are very dangerous and there is accidents that happen all the time in which can be stopped by a SawStop creation.  The quality behind this claim just makes real sense.  We know when watching the videos and also reading on the technology that injuries can be stopped, but companies do not wish to pay for this which makes no real sense.

1e) I do not disagree with this claim because it makes sense in all the right ways.  If table saws are dangerous, and can be improved to make them safer, they should be.

 

2a) “I’ve tried to be fair, but the more I hear about SawStop and Stephen Gass, the more of a bully and a jerk they seem to be.”

2b) Unanimous voice who said this quote seems to think that because Gass is seeing for the rights, that it makes him a jerk for some reason.  Clearly this isn’t the first time that it has came up.

2c) Opinionated claim.  This is what this person thinks but obviously does not mean he is a jerk to e everyone.

2d) I think that this can be a persuasive claim if anything because they can make other people think the same about Gass.  Other then it being persuasive, i do not think it is good quality because it is just a hate quote.

2e) I do refute this claim.  The idea of the flesh detecting mechanism is his own and no one should be able to create the same thing and just give it a different name.  Gas should have the right to sue and it does not make him a jerk just because he is pissed about some companies stealing his idea.

 

3a) “Safety doesn’t sell”

3b) Basically exactly what the quote says, explains the quote.  The product which produces safety just does not sell to bigger companies.

3c) This is a proposal claim because it makes a suggestion that the safety machine does not sell.  It is not factual because it is not true in all aspects.

3d) This claim is both accurate and reasonable because it is true in a sense of the bigger businesses not wanting to buy his idea which can save so many injuries that happen so often.  It doesn’t make much sense that they do not want to buy his safety product.  It is proven that table saws cut off around 4000 fingers per year and by his idea, this number can be lowered to so few.

3e) I agree with this claim.  It is true.  The companies don’t want to spend money on him but they will make their own and name it something else.  It doesn’t make sense.

 

4a) Table saws cause tens of thousands of serious injuries every year, costing billions of dollars.

4b) This claim means that because of the injuries that happen from table saws, there are lots of dollars spent in helping people recover and hospital bills.

4c) This is a factual claim.  There are not many that can be factual but this one provides evidence for it.  It is clear that table saws do make injuries more common and they happen a lot and obviously money has to be spent for bills at the doctors or hospitals.

4d) This claim is very accurate for its own reasons.  It is obvious what this claim means and there is no real way to argue against it because it obviously does cost money for bills for injuries and its proven and numbers have been taken on how many injuries happen per year from them.

4e) I agree with this claim.  There is no reason to disagree with the claim because it is obviously true and factual.

 

5a) “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.”

5b) This claim is trying to say that whomever is saying this statement, thinks that the big companies are not the ones who are saying no to the saw stop idea and paying Gass for it but because it will raise the chance of companies having to make mandatory decisions to put it on every saw which will raise the price of making them.

5c) This is someones opinion.  This is just someone saying what they think the hold on paying Gass is about.

5d) I think this person knows what they are talking about but in  a say we actually do not know exactly what the real reasons are.  The claim they make is ideal and still does sound like it could be a legit reason.

5e)  I agree with this claim in a way because it could be one of the reasons that this is actually happening.

 

6a) “Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market”

6b) Claim states that a man who was injured by most likely a Bosch Tool, says that the company told federals to not let power saws get any safer.  This is a huge problem because if the company told these people to not change anything, then there is something behind the fact that they would most likely lose money.

6c) This is a Proposal claim because the man might not be telling the truth but there is no facts behind if its true.  And its not opinionated because that is not the right type of argument.

6d) Seems like this is more persuasive because this person is trying to get others to turn on the company.  It sounds like something that could happen but also not sure if companies would do something like this knowing that people are being injured all the time.

6e) Not really a chance to disagree with it because its not someones opinion and its something that someone said a company did.

 

7a) “Pretty amazing that I only had to put on a band-aid. The saw reacted so quickly that I didn’t even know what had happened. Saved my thumb from a serious injury and saved my company lots of money.”

7b)  Claim made of a comment from someone that could have got hurt but because of a saw incident but because of SawStop technology, he had nothing other then a cut on his finger.

7c) Proposal claim.  This person is making a suggestion that the SawStop saved him from losing a finger or having a bad injury.

7d) This is a very well said quote.  It is very obvious that the SawStop technology can save people from injury and this is a man that says to a point that it has actually happened to him and his hand is saved because of it.  I think the quality of this claim is good because it goes to show people how this saw really helps.

7e) I agree to what i can with this claim.  Its not something much that that one can agree with but by reading it, i can see that this product really is a big help.

 

8a) “Seems to be the best saw I have ever owned!”

8b) This is probably one of the strongest claims that you can find.  Its made of a straight opinion that says that this person is very strong of the saw.

8c) Opinionated claim.  This is someones claim or statement that they think this saw is obviously the greatest one they’ve ever used.

8d) Nothing much about this claim other then it being straight up with no reasons why this person believes this but them just saying this because of usage and that is most likely it.

8e) Not sure i agree with this claim because I’ve never used the saw but i can’t not agree with it because it does seem as if it could have some potential to be one of the best.

 

7A. In a memo by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, it is states that “The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to approve publication of the draft notice in the Federal Register that will announce an extension of 60 days for the comment period for an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to address table saw blade contact injuries (Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074)”

7B. Lawmakers can discuss the idea of safe saws for 60 more days. This memo does not guarantee that any laws will be changed regarding table saws.

7C. The claim being made is that these table saws are dangerous and do cause many injuries to people.

7D. I think this claim is good because it is about the accidents that table saws cause. Table saw accidents are very serious because life-threatening injuries can occur.

7E. I think that table saw injuries are serious and these accidents should be addressed by the government.

 

1A.In the Pro Tools Blog, an opinion piece states “The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.”

1B. These table saws cost more to manufacture because they have safe saw technology.

1C. The claim being made is that these table saws are very expensive to manufacture. This is a factual piece of evidence because adding new technology to table saws will cost more money.

1D. People should be safe around these saws or get the safety saw. I think people should be able to choose which type of saw they should be able to buy.

1E. While I think these safe table saws can prevent injuries, the cost hike can be very expensive and may be affordable for businesses that work in the hardware industry.

4A. In the article in the National Consumers League, an article in the health section says “Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.”

4B. Around 40,000 Americans seek medical attention for accidents due to table saws.

4C. The type of claim being made is that these table saws can be very dangerous. This is a factual claim because there is evidence to back up the claim.

4D. This is a rough estimate of Americans who go to the emergency room due to table saw accidents. I am sure these numbers are accurate.

4E. I think these many Americans who go the hospital for these types of injuries is horrible. If a safe table saw can prevent these injuries then it will prevent serious injuries and reduce health care costs.

6A. The Schmidt Firm is accepting table saw injuries for people who have been victims of table saw accidents. The firm even says “If you or somebody you know has been injured after using a table saw, you should contact our lawyers immediately”

6B. This quote is trying to encourage people who were victims of table saw injuries to  seek legal advice because they may be able to get compensated.

6C.  This claim is an evaluation claim. The law firm believes that people who were injured by table saws are entitled to compensation.

6D.  This is a very logical claim because it is suggesting that people who have table saw injuries can sue in court for compensation. These type of liability cases are usually admissible in courts.

6E. I think that the situation for each case is very different and that should be taking into account by the court. I think being careless with a table saw is completely different than the saw malfunctioning or a true accident that occurred.

11A. In an article from the website Mother Jones, the author Myron Levins, writes about how table saws cause many injuries every year. The most shocking quote from someone who was a victim of a table saw injury was “Within a second my fingers were on the ground.”

11B. While this quote may not be an argument in itself, it is referring to someone who lost their fingers in a table saw accident. The sentences implies the claim that these table saws are dangerous.

11C. This would be a fact because the man claimed that his fingers were cut off from the rest of his hand.

11D. This claim is true because many people have had their fingers or arms cut off due to table saws. If an accident occurs, then a serious injury may follow.

11E. I do not exactly know how this accident happened, but it is bringing attention to the fact that these table saws can be very harmful to people.

3A. In an article by the Power Tool Institute, there is a claim that “The increased cost of even the least expensive table saws.” This claim is referring the safe saw technology that was recently introduced to the market and to rebuff the claim that only these saws should be sold.

3B. This quote means that the cost of table saws would increase and therefore people would have to pay more for them.

3C. This is a factual claim because whenever a new product is introduced, it is usually more expensive than the old or outdated one.

3D. I think this claim is logical. I can understand that new safe technology will cost more than regular table saws without the safe technology. The sensors cost money to make and manufacture which is an added cost to the table saw.

3E. I believe this is a valid claim that should be noted by those arguing against laws that mandate safe table saws only.

 

 

2A. In an article posted on http://www.sawstop.com, a customer was able to avoid a serious injury by using saw stop instead or a regular table saw.  The man, Robert S, said that Saved my thumb from a serious injury and saved my company lots of money.”

2B. Robert is trying to imply that if he did not have safe saw, he may had a more serious injury.

2C. This claim can be considered factual or opinion. We do not know for sure that if he did not have safe saw that he would have a serious injury, although safe saw most likely did prevent a serious injury.

2D. I think this claim is valid because Robert probably avoided a potential serious accident. If safe saw was not there he may have cut his hand or fingers. The fact that safe saw was there and he did not have a serious injury does help the claim that these saws are safe and good for customers.

2E. I know can believe that these safe saws do actually work and do have positive benefits. The most important benefit is that they can prevent serious injuries from occurring.

9A. In the article, Saws Cut Off 4,000 Fingers a Year. This Gadget Could Fix That, which was posted the website Mother Jones, Steve Grass says “I couldn’t imagine that anyone would not want to put this on the saws that they were offering to people.”

9B. Steve Grass is trying to make a claim that people should only buy these safe table saws.

9C. This is an opinion claim because there are people out there who would rather just have regular table saws because they already take safety precautions.

9D. I think this claim has some truth in it but it is not completely accurate. There are people out there who do not want to pay the extra money for a safe saw and know how to properly use a table saw to prevent accidents from occurring.

9E. I think that most people would want to buy a safe saw, including myself, there will always be those who just want to buy the cheaper saw without safe technology. So while this claim does have some truth, it is not completely accurate.

 

1A. Manufacturers

When you’re cutting wood, if you accidentally run your hand into the blade, it’ll stop it so quickly that you just get a little nick instead of maybe taking some fingers 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 stating that running your hand into the blade causes it to stop.

1D. This claim is accurate and proved in the video it was taken from. Because it was a quote spoken to another person, let’s assume that the deadly “you” rule doesn’t apply as it does in writing; if it did, this claim would be a disaster. Because of the visual proof, it is logical and persuasive. However, on its own, the claim seems very casual and not very convincing at all; there is no concrete proof in the actual sentence.

2A. Customers

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. It would be a bad decision for Bosch to install the SawStop in all of its products, so they should not be held accountable for not doing so.

2C. This is an opinion claim saying that holding Bosch accountable is borderline “ludicrous.”

2D. This claim is not stated very well. First off, to go from “a bit unreasonable” to “ludicrous” is a big jump when you’re trying to equate things of similar value. I get that he’s saying that holding them accountable is crazy, but they could have done it better. Also, “lots of money” is not nearly scholarly enough for the grown man who wrote this. How much money? He could have said thousands or millions of dollars, but he decided not to do that research and settle for “lots.” Even less scholarly is “bad business decision.” This man needs a thesaurus. Overall, it is accurate and logical, but not at all persuasive due to the sloppy rhetoric.

3A. Industry Spokespeople

SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.

3B. SawStop is available, but a customer must choose to buy it, as it is not yet required for it to install it on all saws.

3C. This is a factual opinion, stating that SawStop is available, but giving the opinion that a customer should choose to purchase it (and it should not be required on saws).

3D. This claim is a little passive aggressive, subtly asserting that if a customer wants safe stop, they should buy it and stop complaining. It is accurate, as we know that SawStop is not required, and we know it is available. It is reasonable to assume that customers should just buy the product. This claim is quite persuasive due to its complexity and abundance of reason.

4A. Consumer Safety Advocates

As I have stated many times before—and as is now reflected in the

agency’s new strategic plan—one of the CPSC’s primary goals is a commitment to

prevention.

4B. The CPSC has a strategic plan which includes the goal to prevent future table saw injuries.

4C. This is a factual proposal stating that the CPSC has a plan and suggesting its commitment to prevention.

4D. This claim has a tone of exasperation; the author is stating something that they have said a million times. They prove the truth of their statement by referring the reader to their plan, which they say proves their point. Whether or not that is true is for the reader to find out, but it seems so. It is logical that they would want to prevent injuries, they’re the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Overall I am persuaded; this claim seems to be true.

5A. 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.

5B. The author is saying that Wec said that his injury was at the fault of Bosch.

5C. This is a proposal advocating for Wec.

5D. If this was a direct quote from Wec, it would be much more convincing. The author is paraphrasing his words, giving it the feeling that it is simple here say. The quotations around “traumatic injury” give away that the author doesn’t think the injury was traumatic, but rather it is Wec’s opinion (and also a direct quote) that it was traumatic. It is reasonable to think that his injury could have been prevented by Bosch, but it is not without disputability. Overall, the claim is not very persuasive because it is not directly quoted and it can easily be disputed.

5E. Wec could have been more responsible. It is not Bosch’s fault that he chose not to add the safety equipment that was available to him. Of course required SawStop would be beneficial, but it is not necessary. If he thought he was going to get injured, he should have bought and installed the product himself.

6A. Personal Injury Lawyers

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

6B. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.

6C. This is a factual evaluation, stating that SawStop has been available and evaluating how not all manufacturers have adopted it.

6D. 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.

7A. Government Officials

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

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

7D. This is a very straightforward claim, but it doesn’t give specifics on how the benefits outweigh the costs. Obviously one can’t do that in one short sentence, so I can assume that the specifics come later in the writing. It is logical to assume what the claim states; safety is usually the best option. The word “clearly” gets rid of 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 convincing overall.

8A. 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.

8B. The technology works, but major tool companies have rejected it, although Gass offered them a license years ago.

8C. This is a factual evaluation, giving the facts about SawStop and the license, and evaluating how despite the offer and the product working well, no tool companies have installed the device.

8D. This claim gives the facts and reveals the craziness of the tool companies not adopting Gass’s technology. It gives the readers the sense that the tool companies should have adopted it, making it quite persuasive towards that point. It makes it seem like that was the best option; if the technology was there, and they had the license, why not? It uses this reasoning to get its point across. I applaud this claim for its clear statement of facts and concise statement of opinion.

Manufacturers–

1A: “They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

1B: The manufacturers aren’t worried about a customers safety.

1C: This claim is judgmental because Gass is saying that the manufacturers top priority for table saw isn’t safety because they say it “doesn’t sell.”

1D: In this quote I believe that for this topic about safety it should be a top priority to the top industries that are selling table saw because it can cause permanent damage to individuals and change their lives forever that’s a good reason for people to go with a saw that would mostly likely decrease the number of injuries/ amputations by half.

Customers–

2A: “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.”

2B: They are saying that if the top manufacturers were to agree with having mandatory safety rules on tables saw it will cost double than what table saws cost now because they have to pay more money to follow the safety rules.

2C: This is a evaluation claim because they are evaluating that if the government makes the top manufacturers have a safety guard for their customers, in the future, it will cost twice as much as it cost now.

2D: They want to keep the price reasonable for the customer and to do that they have to go against the government in making them have safety mandates on all of their tables saws.

Industry Spokespeople–

3A: “The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws. They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop technology – and there are a lot:”

3B: The claim is that the major tool manufacturers are offended that they have to make their products safer for the customers that buying their products.

3C: This is a judgmental claim because emphasize that the top manufacturers are taking a strong offense to having to make safety table saws for their customers.

3D: In the review by Clint DeBoer, I would disagree with their claim because if it is saving them money from having less lawsuits against them then why not do it. They’re spending more money by paying a customer (that got injured from their product) that wants about $1000 for their pain and suffering then paying only $150- $200 per SawStop.

Consumer Safety Advocates–

4A: “In the eight years that the Power Tool Industry (PTI) has been opposing automatic safety technology for table saws, an estimated 320,000 serious table saw injuries have occurred, including 32,000 amputations.”

4B: The National Consumers League states that within the eight years that the Power Tool Industry opposed a automatic safety technology over 300,000 people have gotten injured and even worse over 30,000 people have gotten their limbs amputated.

4C: This is an opinion/judgmental claim because it shows the number of people that have got injured from the table saw within the eight years that the PTI went against automatic safety technology.

4D: They analyzed the many of people that have gotten injured or have gotten amputated limbs over the course of eight years because that was when the Power Tool Industry opposed having mandated table saws for customers.

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 claim in the paragraph is that Bosch and the other manufacturers shouldn’t have rejected the safety of technology on table saw. The injury and lawsuit wouldn’t of occurred.

5C: This is a judgmental/proposal claim because they are saying that Bosch was the cause of his injury and the lawsuit would have been prevented if they didn’t declined the safety of their technology.

5D: I agree with the claim because it’s only a couple hundred to insure that your customers have a higher chance of not cutting a limb off and causing permanent damage.

Personal Injury Lawyers–

6A: Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it. 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.

6B: The manufacturers are refusing to be forced to make safer products for their customers and customers are suffering for it.

6C: This is a evaluation claim because the personal injury lawyers are evaluating the results it causes more people to get injuries because the major industries for table saw refused to accepted the mandatory safety rules on all of their products.

6D: Since the manufacturers refused to adopt the mandatory safety technology on their products as a result the customers are getting injured and now are looking for money from the companies to help them with their pain and suffering. when it all could have been avoided if the companies agreed to the safer technology for their table saws.

Government Officials–

7A: The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to approve publication of the draft notice in the Federal Register that will announce an extension of 60 days for the comment period for an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for performance requirements to address table saw blade contact injuries

7B: The claim is that they are prolonging the decision to have mandatory safety rules on table saws.

7C: This is a proposal claim because they are saying that they have an extension on the table saw blade injuries.

7D: I think is should be a “No brainer” because it’s helping manufacturers lessen the lawsuits that they receive annually from angry customers. Plus, it means that people that would’ve got injured are now saved because of the mandatory safety rules.

News Reporters–

8A: “This week some of the nation’s biggest power tool companies sent their executives to Washington. They came to argue against tougher safety mandates for so-called table saws,”

8B: the executive of the major power tool companies went to Washington to oppose the safety mandates for table saws.

8C: This claim is judgmental because they are saying that the top manufacturers are going against the safety rules and more about other things that may be important.

8D: The executives of the major industries for tables saw argued against having tougher safety rules to make their table saws safer for their customers.

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.

1 . Manufacturer  

In the STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN INEZ M. TENENBAUM Moreover, this agency, under my leadership, is firmly committed to exploring how to prevent these kinds of injuries from continuing to occur.

 

• He is considering making saws safer
• Will look into other possibilities to make saws safe
• He personally will try to make a difference in saws

 

2. Customers

In the article If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?, I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year. This inventor, a guy named Steve Gass, had actually figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents. Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.

 

• If saw stops can offer extra protection then they should be put on
• Thinks Steve’s idea is brilliant
• If he proved it works then why not put it on

 

3. Industry Spokespeople

“They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,”

 

• They gave this idea a chance but didn’t go through with it
• They believe safety doesn’t always sell
• Safety might be a help but in some cases it won’t help them bring in the money

 

4 Consumer safety Advocates

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.

 

• Here they are claiming that many injuries occur while using table saws. If there was the automatic break this issue would never occur. They are trying to prove here that many do get hurt from table saws, and it’s not a matter of just a little portion who are getting hurt, many of them are. By having the automatic stop all these injuries would have been prevented.
• They are claiming by having this saw stop those 67,000 people who needed to get medical treatment would have been not harmed if there was this saw stop attached.

 

5 Injured plaintiff.

In the article Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market, He claims that the inventor of the flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer.

 

• Wec claims that if Bosch would have agreed with Flesh detection brake he would have never been injured.  
• If he knew they didn’t agree with they brake company why would he not go to other saw companies to buy a safer saw?

 

6 Personal Injury Lawyer  

in the article Table Saw Injury Lawyer Now,  these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people  whose injuries could have been prevented had Saw Stop or similar safety mechanisms been in place.

 

• Here lawyers are saying that by not having this saw stop blade companies can face major lawsuits, just because they refuse to put in simple equipment they now face lawyers.  
• So is it really worth going to court over putting a sawstop on your equipment if it can prevent injuries.

 

7 Government Officials

In the article Bosch Tools Saw Stop Lawsuit,  What came next is a bit of controversy as Gass attempted to pursue legislation to make his patented technology mandatory through the Consumer Protection Safety Commission, apparently after receiving little support for his proposal to license the technology to manufacturers.

 

• Legislation believed it wasn’t necessary to have this saw stop on it, they saw no need in it.
• Gass has little support on his idea, so few believe but a majority didn’t
• His persuasion and attempt of getting saw stop didn’t work.

 

8. News Reporter                                                                                                                                    In the article If table saws can be safer, why aren’t they, The National Consumers League last month brought in injured woodworkers to meet with lawmakers and regulators. They want to make the Saw Stop safety brake mandatory on all table saws.

 

• Here they want to make it a rule that puts this stop saw on all table saw products.
• They believe by putting in a few extra dollars into a product is worth saving a finger
• What is worth more losing a finger or paying more money for extra protection
• They believe showing some past injuries will help make a law.
• Is the only way they can help pass this law is by bringing in injured saw users to help support there argument.

 

1a. In the article “If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?,” Chris Arnold wrote,”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”

1b. It claims that major tool companies have neglected to make table saws safer, which correlates directly to the idea of “failing.”

1c. This claim is pointing its finger in the direction of the saw making industry and blaming them for the lack of safety in this field of work. This claim is pure opinion and objects to the under-use of technology that could help prevent countless numbers of injuries.

 I like that you’ve identified Arnold’s “have failed” as an indication that they are ignoring an ethical obligation. The claim is more than mere opinion. It’s a Proposal Claim, that something SHOULD BE or NEEDS TO BE done.

1d. This claim clearly shows Chris Arnold’s voice and his unhappiness that table saws could be safer, but major tool companies have not done their part to ensure the safety of their consumers. Chris Arnold is making a direct claim that major tool companies should include SawStop as a part of their saws.

2a. In the article “Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit,” an unnamed customer states, “a system to provide unheard of safety and respect to the use of an electric saw.”

2b. It claims that electric saw’s require a level of respect for its power and versatility by using a system that has provided “unheard of safety.”

2c. This claim is pure opinion in its argument that stresses the uncommonness and remarkableness of the SawStop. By virtue of the article’s title Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit, the idea of “respect” portrays the injuries that come along with these table saws.

2d. This claim, that a saw deserves respect, is probably accurate, at least to the degree that the customer supported it. The customer examines the power of an electric saw that people tend to underestimate when using it. His or voice indicates that the SawStop is the solution to this problem and should be used for respect of something as powerful as a table saw.

This is another proposal, Philly. It claims that users and manufacturers too often fail to respect the danger of a saw. That they SHOULD DO more is a proposal.

3a. Susan Young, who represents Black and Decker, Bosch, Makita and other power tool companies, said,”Many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology.”

3b. It is claimed that customers will not pay for a large additional fee that would come along with the SawStop.

3c. This claim is opinion based that states that the SawStop and its additional fees will be to expensive for consumers. Being that Susan Young is an employee at a power tool company, her viewpoint reflects her companies lack of support for SawStop and its capabilities.

3d. The claim is narrow minded and comes from the representative of Black and Decker, Bosch and Makita, which reflects the overlying belief of major tool companies that the SawStop is too expensive. This claim has virtually no support in its claim and  has failed to provide the reader with any statistical analysis.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, Philly, but you can’t refute an argument by saying that it hasn’t provided enough evidence. No argument is required to do so; however, it opens itself to easy refutation by anyone who supplies a shred of evidence to the contrary.

4a. A consumer safety advocate from the National Consumers League wrote, “Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.”

4b. It claims that approximately 40,000 American go the hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.

4c. This claim, that injuries are sustained while operating table saws, is a factual claim that is meant to persuade manufacturers into adapting to a safer, more innovative way for using a saw, such as the SawStop.

4d. This claim, that approximately 40,000 Americans are injured while operating table saws, is certainly true factually. What is unclear is whether these injuries are related to the blade directly or another source of injury such as the wood itself or an electrical malfunction. The vagueness of the phrase “injuries sustained” provides little incite as to what these injuries were or how they could have been avoided.

This is very smart. Statistics can easily be used to mislead. 40,000 trips to the ER do not equal 40,000 injuries that SawStop could prevent.

5a. An unnamed plaintiff from Pro Tool Reviews wrote, “the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

5b. It claims that an injury sustained in 2007, resulting from a Bosch miter saw, could have been avoided by technology.

5c. This claim is pure opinion in its effort to make table saws safer and prevent future injuries as opposed to his single incident. This unnamed plaintiff uses the existing technology as a backbone to support his argument that his injury could have been avoided.

Not to mention, his injury while using a MITER SAW couldn’t possibly have been prevented by SawStop, which is available only on table saws.

5d. This claim is intended to influence the legislation of SawStop and force major tool companies to make a change in their production. His plea deliberately attacks the saw industry and makes the case that their technology, that has been available for years, could have prevented his injury.

7a. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission wrote, “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.”

7b. It is claimed that Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum has already addressed the table saw industry about the dangers of a table saw.

7c. This claim shows that the table saw has been a problem in the past. His statement reflects his attempts to diminish table saw injuries in the past, but the word “hazard” shows the the table saw is just as dangerous as it has been in the past.

7d. This claim shows that there must be a change in the table saw industry. The table saw is to much of a “hazard” to Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum that he felt it was necessary to address the table saw industry again. His claim is reflection of his impatience regarding the manufacturing of table saws.

You’re really good at this, Philly.

9a. Steve Gass, inventor of the SawStop, said, “It’s the right thing to do. And if you don’t do it, you’re going to be liable for the injuries.”

9b. It is claimed that Steve Gass’s invention should not only be acquired by major tool companies to put money in his pocket, but because it is the morally right thing to do.

9c. This claim is pure opinion in its effort to win over manufacturers as well as government officials to buy his product. He could have easily replaced “right” with the word “necessary,” but he chose “right” to reflect the moral standards that major tool companies should be held accountable for.

You’ve identified several Proposal Claims in your analysis, Philly, without knowing what to call them. I don’t fault you for that. You have made clear in every case that the claim-makers wish to impose a moral or ethical burden in making their claims.

9d. This claim is intended to win over manufacturers as well as government officials to buy into the SawStop. The morality used in this claim is effective and makes manufactures look terrible by ignoring the various injuries that occur with table saws.

11a. Carlos Osorio, a flooring installer in Boston, said, “There was blood on my face, my body. It was everywhere.”

11b. It is claimed that Carlos Osorio was in an accident involving blood everywhere.

11c. This claim objects to the safety of a table saw. He chose to use the phrase “it was everywhere” to reflect the harshness of his incident. His claim points directly towards large power tool companies that should have been held accountable for his blood.

11d. This claim is meant to place blame on the hands of the manufacturers. Osorio’s plea is an extreme example of why power companies should add SawStop to their industry. The blood is “everywhere,” including the hands of the table saw industry.

Bravo, Philly. The blood is on the hands of the table saw industry. I’m on my feet applauding.