1A. “During a braking event, carbide teeth could be thrown through the blade opening”

1B. The manufacturer of the SawStop saws is saying that during the safe stop process, a tooth from the blade can become a projectile.

1C. Consequential

1D. The claim is the manufacturer’s attempt to make the SawStop not seem as safe as it actually is. The possibility of the blade breaking apart and becoming a projectile is real, but probably not as real as they want us to think. They are giving everything they have to try make it seem like they should not switch to the SawStop.

2A. “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.”

2B. “His permanent and ‘traumatic injury’ could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

2C. Proposal

2D. He claims that if this saw would have had SawStop, it would have stopped him from obtaining his injury. Although he could have easily bought a saw with SawStop to begin with, he claims that the saw should have had it anyway.  The claim holds some weight to the company because if it did have it, he could have not obtained the injury. Though he could have bought a saw with SawStop and not have obtained it either.

3A. “Blade guards work if people will use them.”

3B. “Blade guards work if people will use them.”

3C. Consequential

3D. They claim blade guards would work if people used them and that is true. They seem to forget that people take them off because they are inconvenient. This is a valid argument because it could be compared to cars with seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives and blade guards could save fingers.

4A. “Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”

4B. The current table saw safety standards have proven not to work as injuries are still too high.

4C. Categorical

4D. They are claiming that the safety standards are inefficient which is true.  The company itself is expected to put out the safest product possible for its customers. Knowing that technology exists and not using it is ignoring customer safety.  The claim is true, but the companies think items like the blade guard apply enough safety. They also weigh the cost of doing it versus not, when people will still buy the saws anyway.

5A. ““flesh detection and braking technology” and “user friendly blade guard(s)” have been available for years. “

5B.  The technology for flesh detection has been available for years.

5C. Evaluation.

5D. The statement is true and logical; the technology has been around for years. The claim is reasonable, but the quality and persuasiveness is lacking. This happens because the technology has been around for years, so the man could have bought a SawStop saw and not theirs. That is a statement that is horrible for business, but true. He made the decision to buy the saw when he knew it did not have SawStop. All the company has to say is, “Buyer beware”.

6A. “his injury would also have been prevented by properly following existing safety procedures”

6B. The man would not have gotten injured if they used proper safety procedures.

6C. Consequential

6D. The claim is crude, rude, and cold hearted, yet effective. This is like a car company throwing a case out for someone not wearing a seatbelt. Yes, it is cold hearted and rude, but completely accurate. They want the customer to use the saw as directed and they think when using it in that way, there should not be a risk of injury.

6E. The claim is true but seems harsh. The company clearly does not want to get in trouble, so they have fallbacks like this to prevent it. The man did not throw his hand into the saw and suffered a tragic loss. The company does not seem to care about the man’s well being; just their pockets which make them look awful in my opinion.

7A. “an average table saw equipped with an automatic safety system will deliver $753 in benefits due to reduced injuries. The $753 benefit per table saw is many times greater than the $100 cost per saw”

7B. The government official said that the benefits for the consumer far outweigh the costs of replacing the SawStop system.

7C. Proposal

7D. The claim is great but not for the side that needs convincing. The claim is logical for the consumer but not the companies that need to buy the SawStop for their saws. It does not save them money. All it does is make it safer for the consumer, which they might not care too much about. The sale of the saw is what they are concerned about. The claim does not hold weight so the consumer is already convinced that there is no need to go any further.

8A. “the innovation may have broad use for all kinds of dangerous equipment”

8B. The SawStop might bring on a range of safer power tools.

8C. Evaluation.

8D. The reporter is trying to relate the SawStop issue to people who would not use a table saw. If those people used other dangerous power tools, hearing that something could make them safer in the future would make them fight for the SawStop. This is a logical and good quality claim as it will bring in help that otherwise might not be there.