Manufacturers

1a. In regards to manufacturing table saws with the SawStop technology, the PTI argues, “The requirement would be too costly.”

1b. It would be expensive for both the consumer and the manufacturer to install the SawStop technology in all table saws.

1c. This is an evaluational claim as the author is concluding that due to the manufacturing costs and licensing fees that would accompany installing the SawStop into all table, it would be expensive.

1d. This claim can be considered accurate to some degree. The word costly, however, does not have an exact value. What some people may consider costly may not be costly to others.

Customers

2a. In a broadcast on NPR, Chris Harmon, a cabinet maker in Mississippi, is heard saying, “Do it again! Do it again! I want to see it. This is incredible. He’s going to be well off,” in response to seeing a demonstration of the Saw Stop.

2b. He’s going to be well off.

2c. This is a consequential claim as the speaker believes that the inventor will make a lot of money from selling his invention.

2d. This claim could be considered justified as the speaker believes that this invention is incredible and thus everyone will want to buy it, making the inventor very wealthy. However, in reality the SawStop technology was not well received amongst saw manufacturers and did not make the inventor as wealthy as if he had sold the technology to big power tool companies.

Industry Spokesperson

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.

3b. SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.

3c. This is a proposal claim. The problem is that the PTI has not included the SawStop or similar safety technology in their products and consumers are complaining. The solution according to the PTI is if the consumers are so worried about safety then they should spend the extra money to buy a saw with a safety mechanism.

3d. This claim is completely valid. The technology exists and is accessible to consumers who are willing to pay extra for it. It is not as if consumers did not have access to this technology at all. The SawStop is also a safety net. If consumers were careful and always paid attention to what they were doing then this safety mechanism would not be needed. The safety mechanism is not essential to the table saw being able to work.

Consumer Safety Advocate

4a. The NCL factsheet on Saw Safety reported: “Table saws cause tens of thousands of serious injuries every year, costing billions of dollars.”

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

4c. This claim is consequential as the cost of billions of dollars results from the serious injuries due to table saws.

4d. This claim seems valid. It costs a lot of money to go to the hospital for a serious injury. Sometimes medicine is needed as well and that is definitely not cheap, especially without health insurance. However, I do not know if altogether it actually costs billions of dollars. This claim could be made stronger by giving an amount for a possible cost of going to the hospital following a saw blade injury.

Injured Plaintiffs

5a. In a Courthouse News Service article, Ryszard Wec was quoted saying “his permanent and ‘traumatic injury’ could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

5b. Ryszard Wec is blaming Bosch for his ‘traumatic injury’ because that company and its competitors rejected and fought against the safety technology.

5c. This claim is a consequential claim as Wec believes his injury is a result of Bosch rejecting the safety technology.

5d. This claim is not completely accurate. While the safety saw technology could have prevented Mr. Wec’s ‘traumatic injury,’ the injury itself was a result of Wec physically touching the saw blade. Had Mr. Wec not been using a table saw at all or had not come in contact with the blade, his injury could have been avoided completely.

Personal Injury Lawyers

6a. The web page of a table saw injury lawyer states, “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place.”

6b. “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place.”

6c. This is a proposal claim as the problem was that the manufacturers were facing lawsuits from injured parties who had used their products and the solution would have been to install the safety mechanisms in their products.

6d. As this claim is coming from a proponent of the SawStop, this proposal seems valid as the people are suing the manufacturers because they got injured using their products and these injuries may have been avoided if the manufacturers had installed the SawStop or a similar safety mechanism.

Government Officials

7a. Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission reports, “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.”

7b. Serious injuries include fractures, avulsions, and amputations

7c. The quote is a categorical claim that groups fractures, avulsions, and amputations as serious injuries.

7d. This claim is valid as fractures, avulsions, and amputations require almost immediate medical attention and take many days to fully heal.

News Reporters

8a. Clint DeBoer states in his article,” Bosch Tools Dragged Into SawStop-Centric Lawsuit,”The real controversy comes in that legislation like this would set a precedent that would mandate any technology that increases the safety of a dangerous power tool.”

8b. legislation like this would set a precedent that would mandate any technology that increases the safety of a dangerous power tool

8c. This is a consequential claim as the mandate would be a result of the precedent set by this new legislation.

8d. This claim is valid. If a situation like this were to arise in the future in regards to another dangerous power tool, consumer safety advocates would refer to the SawStop incident and use it to get safety technology installed in all power tools.