1A. Steven Gas the founder of SawStop stated that he’s making table saws “safer.”
2A. It claims that Gas believes his product is safer than ones that are currently out.
3A. This sounds like a factual claim that Gas did make table saws safer by creating the SawStop.
4A. This claim that Gas, the founder of SawStop is making table saws safer is certainly true factually. Not only is it true but it’s persuasive as well, by getting people to want to purchase this “safer” product.
2A. Chris Harmon, who owns a cabin making business in Mississippi made a remark about the SawStop. He said “This is incredible! This guy is going to be well off!”
2B. This claim states that Harmon is in favor of the SawStop invention and thinks it was an incredible invention that’ll leave Gas well off, in other words wealthy.
2C. This is a causal claim that Harmon thinks the SawStop is an incredible invention that will leave founder Steven Gas wealthy (since the product should sell fast since it is so incredible).
2D. This is a reasonable claim because if the product is as incredible as Harmon says it is, i it should be improved by major power-tool companies such as Black & Decker and placed on the market.
3A. Susan Young who represents Black & Decker, Makita, Bosch and many other power-tool companies said “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.” In other words, she’s saying let the consumers decide if the find the product worthy of paying $100-$300 in cost.
3B. This statement claims that Susan Young suggests if customers find the product worthy of paying$100-$300 in cost they will pay for it if they decide to.
3C. This is a casual claim. It draws the conclusion that many customers may not find the product worthy of the price.
3D. This is an accurate and logical claim. After all, since the product will be a lot more expensive than other products already on the market that could possibly work just as good many will not purchase it when cheaper options are available.
Consumer Safety Advocates:
4A. An article on Table Saw Injury Lawyers States “Consumer advocates have asked the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to pass new rules that would require injury prevention technology to be included on all table saws sold in the U.S.”
4B. This claim states that Consumer Advocates want rules that require injury prevention technology to be on all table saws sold in the U.S.
4C. This is a simple factual claim that Consumer Advocates want injury prevention rules on all table saws.
4D. This claim is unsubstantiated, it isn’t a guarantee that these rules will be applied on all table saw or even passed.
5A. Ryszard Wec, a man who was cut by a miter saw says “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.”
5B. Ryszard Wec claims that his traumatic and permanent injury is a result of Bosch and its competitors rejecting safety technology.
5C. This is a quality claim, that suggests Wec injuries could have in fact been a result from the decline of safer technology.
5D. The claim that his permanent and traumatic injury occurred from the lack of safety technology is accurate and logical. This injury could have been avoided if Bosch accepted the safety technology instead of denying it by fearing they would be liable to a defective product.
Personal Injury Lawyers:
6A. The Schmidt Firm, PLLC wrote “Every year there are over 40,000 table saw injuries resulting in more than 4,000 amputations.”
6B. Claims that there are so many injuries and amputations as a result of table saws without safety technology.
6C. This is a consequence claim that 40,000 injuries and over 4,000 amputations resulted from the use of table saws with no safety technology.
6D. This claim that so many injuries and amputations come from table saws is probably accurate as well as persuasive in wondering if the blade cuts off the fingers? Or injures the fingers so badly that the best solution is an amputation.
7A. Chairman Inez M. Tenebaum stated “Today’s unanimous vote…determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable injuries that occur a year.”
7B. This statement claims that the U.S Consumer Safety Commission approves of safety technology to be a part of the solution as to why so many injuries will be prevented.
7C. This is a casual claim that the U.S. Consumer Safety Commission claims to be a part of the reason that injuries can be prevented once the rule for safety technology is passed.
7D. The claim that they want to be part of the solution is certainly reasonable and factual. However, it is unclear if they want to be the FULL reason as to why injuries are prevented once the rule is passed or simply just a part of the reason if they are the ones who approve the safety technology laws.
8A. From NPR news, a news reported stated “Well for some time now an inventor has been trying to persuade power tool makers to use a new safety device called SawStop.”
8B. It claims that the inventor has been trying to persuade power tool makers to use his safer product but he hasn’t gotten them to.
8C. This claim that the inventor has been “trying to persuade” sounds like a casual claim.
8D. This claim is probably accurate, at least to the degree that the inventor has been trying to persuade them but hasn’t been successful in doing so.