1. Manufacturers

1 A. “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:”

1 B. The manufacturers are strongly against the SawStop, for many practical/financial reasons.

1 C. Definitional/Evaluation Claim

1 D. The claim backs itself with a list of reasons. The points are very true and accurate, with facts to back them. The reasons following the claim are very accurate, and are persuasive towards having the manufacturers not require the SawStop.

2. Customers

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

2 B. Current table saws are dangerous to consumers.

2 C. Definitional Claim

2 D. The claim is very straight forward and states what is needed to be said. The support follows, emphasizing that guards do not help, and that the saws still remain dangerous.

3. Industry Spokespeople

3 A. “Of course they did, along with every other manufacturer. So Bosch apparently doesn’t want to be under a law that would double the price of many of their saws, require expensive safety devices on miter saws (which really don’t need them) and force them (and all other manufacturers) to pay royalties to a monopolistic single license holder of the SawStop technology… I wouldn’t either.”

3 B. Workers should be able to be safe themselves, but the main reason companies did not want SawStop was due to expensive payments to a single license holder.

3 C. Definitional Claim

3 D. The saws would be more expensive, and the costs are much for companies. However, safety should come first. More money is probably lost in countless law suits than the cost of safer saws.

3 E. Companies should put safety first. The workers may be safe themselves, but an accident can happen at any time. They should not be worried more about the cost of the SawStop and needing to replace all the saws.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4 A. “When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet preventable injuries were unacceptable. They are even more unacceptable now.”

4 B. Injuries from unsafe saws have never been acceptable.

4 C. Evaluation Claim

4 D. The claim, coming from previous years’ records prove that the large number of injuries were serious. The claim is accurate, leaning towards the use of safe saws.

5. Injured Plaintiffs

5 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.”

5 B. The corporation and its competitors did not want to have the safe saws become required, to stop themselves from liability issues.

5 C. Consequential Claim

5 D. The claim comes from one who has been previously injured, and is probably accurate. The injured man has experienced injury and believes that the safer saws should be used.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6 A. “The Schmidt Firm, LLP is currently accepting Table Saw induced injury cases in all 50 states. If you or somebody you know has been injured after using a table saw, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation. ”

6 B. “The Schmidt Firm, LLP is currently accepting Table Saw induced injury cases in all 50 states. If you or somebody you know has been injured after using a table saw, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation.”

6 C. Proposal Claim

6 D. The claim suggests for anyone who was injured to be able to come for a case. The claim might appeal to those who were injured, as the firm seems very confident in their cases. 

7. Government Officials

7 A. “We’ve got this great technology — it’s not terribly expensive to implement.”

7 B. The technology is good and cheap.

7 C. Categorical Claim

7 D. The claim states what is thought about the technology. However, the claim says the technology is not too expensive, while one of the main reasons companies did not want to implement it was for financial reasons. Showing numbers would back the claim stating that “it’s not terribly expensive.”

8. News Reporters

8 A. “Either way, the gears are now turning in Washington. By the end of September, regulators say they’ll issue a draft of new safety requirements for table saws.”

8 B. Whether it’s wanted or not, Washington is creating a new safety draft to replace the old.

8 C. Consequential/Resemblance Claim

8 D. The claim means that because of the SawStop and injuries, Washington is going to develop a new draft of safety requirements. The claim is true; because of all the past injuries and ‘commotion,’ a new draft was bound to be created in the nearby future.