1) Manufacturers

a) Steve Gass the creator of SawStop say the system can tell the difference between wood and a human finger.

b) Steve Gass guarantees that the number of injuries that are due to table saw injuries will decrease with the instillation of SawStop.

c) Resemblance

d) This claim is accurate because once a blade is forced to stop in 1/1000^th of a second and give 1/8^th of a second. This claim is reasonable because although SawStop will damage the blade, but the humans hand will be saved.

2) Customers

a) In the Court House New Article, Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.

b) Wec believes that he would have not been injured from the table saw if Bosh would have implemented SawStop in to the products.

c) Casual Claim

d) This claim not accurate because if Bosch would have put the SawStop technology in his table saw what is to say that his saw wouldn’t have been a faulty saw.  If SawStop did not work on his saw he would have still sued Bosch for a faulty product.

e) I refute this claim because if SawStop was put in the table saw and did not work Bosh would have been sued any way.

3) Industry Spokesperson

a) On the National Consumer League website the Power Tool Industry argue the blade guards work if people will use them.

b) The reason for 320,000 tables saw injuries and 32,000 amputations are due to the consumers not using the guards.

c) Definitional

d) There is not logic to this claim the blade guard must be removed for multiple cuts that are made to the wood. When using SawStop cuts can be made from all angle and the person operating the table saw will not be severely injured.

e) I chose to refute this claim because of the PTI knowing that the blade guard must be removed from the table saw to accomplish multiple cuts to the wood and still using this as a claim to why they have not used SawStop on any of their products.

4) Consumer Safety Advocates

a) The National Consumers League explains current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.

b) The safety standards on table saws are defective.

c) Evaluation

d) This claim is accurate because the only safety tool that is being used with table saws are blade guards. Blade guard technology has not changed for 50 years. Although the blade guard has not stopped there being 40,000 table saw injuries every year.

5) Injured Plaintiffs

a) The Courthouse News Service’s article states, A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.

b) Robert Bosch Tool Corp. did not want to add new safety alternatives so they would not be held liable for new faulty tools.

c) Casual Claim

d) This claim is not reasonable because the plaintiff could have chosen to use a different miter saw. The plaintiff could have chosen to use a saw that provided the safety technology.

e) I do agree with this claim because although there is proof of lobbying with Consumer Protection and Safety Commission. But that claim has nothing to do on why the plaintiffs hand was injured. If the plaintiffs claim was that the Robert Tool Corp. product was faulty this would be a valid claim.

6) Personal Injury Lawyers

a) On the Schmidt law website, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of Carlos Osorio, who suffered severe, permanent finger injuries after using a Ryobi table saw.

b) If SawStop had been mandated to be included in all table saws Carlos Osorio would not have permanent finger injures.

c) Consequential

d) This claim is accurate because Osorio was able to prove that if table saws had the SawStop technology he would have only had 1/8 of an inch cut on one of his fingers. The claim is persuasive because of the circumstance that Osorio’s fingers are in now due to the table saw company deciding not to add the new technology to their products.

7) Government Officials

a) Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year.

b) SawStop can stop majority of injuries that are due to table saws without the technology that was not mandated in 2006.

c) Proposal

d) This claim is accurate and because this will help solve the problem of blade injury. Over 67,300 people being injured within two year of when the proposal of all table saws to use the new technology of SawStop it is without a doubt reasonable for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to enact this ruling.

8) News

a) On the News & Opinion blog protocol review blog reviews that The Power Tool Institute takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws.

b) SawStop is attempting to legally make all companies  that provide table saws buy their technology because of their new safety advancement.

c)  Evaluation

d) This claim is logical until the technical and practical/financial problems occur with mandating SawStop. There are chances that they blade can become damaged due to the SawStop. SawStop can be faulty towards wet wood. Until the problems are fixed this is not a logical claim.