Customer Safety Advocates
“Roughly 10 people lose their finger per day due to table saws. 3000 a year.” This is a claim that customer safety advocates would jump on instantaneously. Safety advocates would jump on this statement ASAP, less people injured the better for safety advocates. This is a numerical claim that must’ve been made through analysis of some sort, although nothing is cited.
“Steve Gass is trying to bring 10 down to 0.” News gets clicks based off of negativity and the solution to said negativity, and nothing screams “clicks” like 10 people losing their finger a day turning into 0. This is a causal claim as they’re bringing up the possibility that Steve may have found a solution to the issue at focus. If his new saw is introduced at a big scale, it will cause the lost fingers to drop dramatically.
“The blade of the saw stops before it comes in contact with your skin.” The manufacturer would use this to explain the mechanics behind the new innovation. This is a factual claim from the manufacturer as they have put this to the test hundreds of times and will proceed to show us again.
“That’s amazing, I mean it’s like nothing even happened.” The customer is reacting to the test ran by Steve Gass. This is an evaluative claim, as after the test has been conducted, it proves the worth of the saw. There was little to no mark on the finger/hotdog. The more convincing the test, the more likely a customer will be to purchasing the new saw.
“The saw can see the difference between a piece of wood and your finger.” With a new innovation in the industry, everyone will have to reach this newly set standard. This is a categorical claim as it splits up two different possibilities into their own categories. While inanimate objects will not be cut, fingers and such of that nature will not be cut.
“Your typical $400 jobsite saw would potentially rise in cost to around $625.” This is a numerical claim that a plaintiff would use to explain why they couldn’t afford the new technology. Although it could be a finger-saver, the worth is something not everyone can pay for.
Today’s unanimous vote by the Commission to approve an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on table saw blade contact injuries should send a clear signal to consumers and the industry that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year. The gov’t uses a causal claim here, believing that advancing the new saw mechanisms will lead to a decline in saw related injuries.
Personal Injury Lawyers
Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it. This is an evaluative claim made by an injury lawyer referring to the new advancements in saws. Although there have been new technology in this department, there still seems to be injuries. This could possibly be a factual claim.