3A. “The Directorate for Engineering Sciences received a sample of a prototype tablesaw safety device, as well as a detailed demonstration from its inventor, on July 11, 2001 to evaluate its potential to address injury. The inventor also provided an information package that combines the extensive technical information of the 26 different patents obtained in designing the safety system.”
3B. This statement makes a few claims. First, it details what the Directorate of Engineering Sciences received from Mr. Gass. Second, it assumes that the product in question has the ability, at least to some degree, to address injury. It DOES NOT make the claim that it prevents injury in any way. Lastly, it mentions that information was received regarding patents on the product, with limited explanation of what these patents contained.
3C. 1) The first claim is direct, saying that the board received a prototype of the SawStop device from Mr. Gass, perhaps meaning that they’ve tested it out. This is certainly not confirmed though, as it only says that they have their hands on it. 2) The second claim is an assumption, one of which assumes that the product they have received can address injury in some way, positive or negative. All that can be assumed from this is that it affects the relationship between tablesaws and injury. 3) The last claim is also direct, stating that details on patents were received by the board.
3D. 1) The first claim is rather effective in its nature, being direct and to the point. It does contain vagueness in the realm of not explaining or elaborating as to whether the board has tested out the device or not. 2) The second claim is sightly less effective, as it only mentions that the product “addresses” injury. Perhaps it is kept vague like this on purpose? Maybe it does not desire to make any claims that are too specific? 3) The last claim, similar to the first is effective in its simple nature. It does not delve too deeply in the topic, only stating that patents were received, and from this it can be derived that patents, at least 26 of them, were created for this product.
8A. A reviewer from ProToolReviews comments, “This week, a man 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. Um… no doubt. To our knowledge no manufacturer is anxious to pay SawStop an 8% license fee for this technology anytime soon, especially when the manufacturing for the technology alone will increase the average price of a table saw by anywhere from $150-$200 by the time it hits the shelves.”
8B. As with everything, numerous claims are made in this statement. The first major claim is that a man was harmed by a Bosch brand tablesaw.