1.) Manufacturers

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 – and there a lot:

• The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.”

B.) The Power Tool Industry cites this specific reason as to why they are opposed to mandating new safety technology for table saws.  They argue that, because this implementation would cost them more money, the consumer would then, in turn, have to pay more money for their products.

C.) Consequential

D.) This claim is valid because it expresses the correlation between implementing the new safety technology and how it could prove to be detrimental by requiring the consumer to pay more, resulting in less income.

2.) Customers

A.) An article from the National Consumers League says that, “Table saw injuries cost the United States approximately $2 billion every year.”

B.) This statement claims that the amount of money spent on injuries far outweighs the amount of money that would be spent on safety technologies, such as SawStop.

C.) Evaluation

D.) This is a logical claim to make because the article has gathered enough statistical data to back up its point of the cost-effectiveness of implementing new safety technologies.

3.) Industry Spokespeople

A.) “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.

B.) The claim here is that even though companies are not mandating SawStop, it is still available to any individual who wishes to buy it.

C.) Proposal

D.) This claim is reasonable because it is very clear in stating that if individuals feel the need for SawStop, they are more than welcome to go and purchase it. However, at the same time, it is not imperative that a company implement such technology if it does not feel the need to do so.

4.) Consumer Safety Advocates

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

B.) “Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”

C.) Casual

D.) The level of safety that is currently in place in the work field is clearly insufficient, thus raising the demand for the new SawStop technology to be implemented.

5.) Injured Plaintiffs

A.)  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.

B.) Ryszard Wec, a man who was cut by a miter saw, claims that if Robert Bosch Tool Corp and its competitors did not coordinate to keep the safe saw technology out of the workplace, he would not have suffered such an injury.

C.) Consequential

D.) This claim is not entirely valid because it is making a huge accusation against several companies by saying that they coordinated in order to refrain from implementing the new safe saw technology.  Although Wec’s argument makes sense, it cannot be deemed valid because there is no concrete evidence that indicates that these companies coordinated anything.

6.) personal Injury Lawyers

A.) “Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it. In fact, the world’s largest tool manufacturers rejected it.”

B.) The claim here is that an extreme amount of injuries and amputations occur every year because SawStop technology has not been mandated by all tool manufacturers.

C.) Consequential

D.) This claim is reasonable because specific instances are cited that support its reasoning.

7.) Government Officials

A.) “Last year, I called on the table saw industry to address this hazard through the voluntary standards process and work to prevent the needless injuries that occur each and every day. Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”

B.) Although power tool companies do not believe that they need to make any changes to their safety technologies, preventable injuries are still occurring at a very high rate.

C.) Evaluation

D.) This claim is logical because there is a good chance that if these power tool companies implemented the new, safer technology, there would not be as many injuries as there are currently.

8.) News Reporters

A.) Table saw related accidents send around 40,000 people to emergency rooms every year, 3000 of whom suffer amputations. This type of injury can range from workers in cabinetry shops to kids in a high school shop class.

B.) The claim here is that these types of injuries can effect people other than workers.

C.) Casual

D.) This claim is logical because it states how SawStop would prove to be beneficial not only specifically to workers, but anyone who happens to use a table saw at some point in their lives.