1A. The Power Tool Institute, an industry group that represents Black & Decker and Bosch, said that the price of their table saws with the safety devices would “increase dramatically,” eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.

1B. If this mandatory safety law for saws to have sawstop’s put into them were to go in effect, the price of their saws with safety devices would go up dramatically. Eliminating low priced bench top saws.

1C. Consequential claim, having a mandatory law will destroy the low price bench top saw market.

1D. This is a valid point, however, this is necessary. If you can stop saw related injuries world wide, there should be no reason for you not to.

2A. I’ve heard the quality on the saw is pretty good. If I were setting up a shop where multiple people would be using the saw, I’d definitely get one of these. Just for me, it seems a little pricey but I figure the first time it saves a finger or the like, it’s paid for itself.

2B. It may cost more, but definitely less then the cost of a finger.

2C. Categorial claim, are sawstop saws worth the cost?

2D. This is definitely a valid point. People are more worried about injuring themselves then they are about the cost of the saw.

3A. Consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.

3B. Consumers aren’t interested in being safe, they’re interested in saving money.

3C. Categorial claim, are SafeSaws an extra cost consumers are willing to pay to be safer?

3D. I do see this statement to be a valid argument, but also slightly disagree. Many people will not want to pay extra to be safe, but this could be said about anything. As I said before, people would be willing to pay less to buy cars without seat belts. Seat belts save the lives of thousands of people, and SafeSaws would save thousands of people as well, however seat belts are enforced by law, maybe SafeSaws should be too. Another argument would be that many people do buy safe saws. To say that consumers aren’t willing to pay more for them is clearly wrong.

4A. The Power Tool Institute says that the additional cost to manufacurers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.

4B. The amount of money to implement these saws would cost the consumer more.

4C. Evaluation claim, the money needed for companies to begin using these saws would cause the consumer to pay more money.

4D. The claim is valid enough. The companies will need more money to instate these new saws and in order for them to do this, it may cost them a fortune.

4E. I completely resent this claim. Even though, yes, it will cost more money. The ends justify the means. Saying something like this is like saying, “Seatbelts shouldn’t be mandatory in cars because it makes the car more expensive.” Which is completely ridiculous.

5A. A man named Wec, 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.

He also 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.

5B. Wec was injured by a miter saw and is saying that the Robert Bosch Tool Corp. is ensuring, along with others, that the safe flesh detecting saws are kept off the market.

5C. Consequential Claim, is Robert Bosch’s Tool Corp and its competitors the reason for Wec avoidable injury?

5D. I believe that there is indeed enough evidence to support his claim. The saws have been available to the public for some years now, and the Corp. had to go out of their way to not get them. Even when the inventor came to them for a deal, they still put the offer down when they acknowledged the risks. Even with the risks of not using these saws, they denied the safety Wec needed, and he suffered because of it.

6A. Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.

6B. Current safety standards are not doing their job, and people are becoming injured because of it.

6C. Evaluation claim, current safety standards are bad and aren’t working.

6D. I think this is a valid point, but I feel it needs more evidence to back it up. I’d like to know how many of the people that come in with saw related incidents were not following safety standards. Carelessness while working could also be the problem and therefore, the standards aren’t the problem.

8A. Major companies aren’t interested in the sawstop technology because it is unproven technology.

8B. Companies are sceptical about how reliable this technology actually works and think that it may be marketed differently then the actual model.

8C. Categorical claim, are safe saws actually worth what they are marketed for?

8D. I think this a poor reason for companies to not use safe saws. Even if they are worried that they may not be perfect, there is plenty of room to test the saws and make sure they are what they are said to be. I think this is a lazy answer for companies to avoid using these saws.