1. Manufacturers This claim is from the website :http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit.  “A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)” This claim is a consequential claim. It tell you how a false trip will cause replacement of the broken mechanism and cost the manufacturer more money. This is relevant because the company is already paying more to install the product, paying a percent to Steve Gass, and then having to rise their price of saws because of all the costs they have to pay. This could all result in less business for them and cost them lots of profit showing how this safety mechanism is too costly for the manufacturers to put in because it can’t fit into their expenses.

2. Customers-This claim is by Larry Okrend, the editor in chief of HANDY magazine and customer of the safe saw technology. “Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem.” The claim is a definitional and evaluation claim because it defines that the table saws are a problem, but also states that it is only part of the problem by saying it’s just a piece that needs to be fixed with power-tool safety. This is irrelevant because it says that we shouldn’t use the table saw safety equipment because it doesn’t solve all the safety problems with different power tools. It does help with the table saw safety, which is the main purpose of the equipment, not to make the wood shop safe from all of the dangers that people face there. It just doesn’t make sense to ignore one piece of safety equipment because it doesn’t solve all of your dangerous problems you face while working in a wood shop.

3. Industry Spokespeople- This claim is made by the industry spokespeople from the site: http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit. “Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position.” This claim is a resemblance and definitional claim. It states what Gass wants and is defining his price to the saw industry. It’s also a resemblance claim because it states how the royalties Gass is asking for is just like a monopoly in demanding such a high price with no alternative to go to for this type of safety equipment. This claim is relevant because it shows the saw industry’s concern on incorporating this technology when Gass is asking for a high price of royalties from the saws. The comparison to a monopoly seems very relevant because he is the only one out there selling this technology and if the industry goes with his asking price then they fall under his control because he could raise the price as high as he wants with the industry having no other way to get the safe saw technology into their saws. They would be powerless and it seems like they do not want to give Gass that kind of control over them.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates- this claim is by  Dr. John D. Graham, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President George W. Bush. “an average table saw equipped with an automatic safety system will deliver $753 in benefits due to reduced injuries.” This claim is an evaluation and proposal claim. It creates an evaluation of what the outcome would be if the safety device was installed. It also proposes to creating benefits of up to $753 from the decrease in injuries. This claim is relevant because it shows how much money will be saved through the safety technology when the cost to install the equipment only costs $100. It creates a view of the saw stopping mechanism to be very cost efficient.

5. Injured Plaintiffs- This claim is by Ryszard Wec who sued Bosch Tool Corp. for his injury from their table saw. “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.” This claim is an evaluation and consequential claim. Wec states the consequences of not having the safety equipment as permanent and traumatic. He also evaluates that it could have been prevented if they had the safe saw technology. This is relevant because it shows how not having the safe saw technology can cause lawsuits and how people feel that having the safety equipment in the saws can lessen the chance of a traumatic injury such as the one Wec faced.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers-This claim is from the schmidt law firm. “If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses.” This claim is a consequential and evaluation claim. It states the consequences of injuries the man faced by not having the safe saw technology in his table saw. It’s also an evaluation claim because it states if this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw that Osorio’s injuries would have been limited. This claim is relevant because it states the severity of costs the man faced from not having safer saw technology, but at the same time is irrelevant because you can’t confirm that the injury would have went a different or a certain way with the safe saw technology in because they have no idea what would have happened when the technology was in place. They are basing their claim off of demonstrations they have seen, but don’t know for sure what the extent of the man’s injury would be because it didn’t happen and they don’t have time travel, or magical powers to view this difference if the technology was in place.

7. Government Officials- This quote is by Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Comission. “Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well asamputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.” This claim has multiple claims in it starting with each injury they talk about with the fractures, avulsions, and amputations to the talk about the seriousness of the injuries, the change in lives, and how families have been impacted forever. The claim is a consequential claim because it talks about all the consequences of not having safer saw blades. They talk about the injuries that have been caused by this and how its affected thousands of families and changed their lives. This claim is very relevant because it shows the severity of injuries from unsafe saw blades and supports their main argument that there needs to be safer saw regulations to take away from this constant injuring of people using saws.

8. News Reporters- This claim is from the NPR newscast in 2004. ” but the power-tool industry has resisted it….” This claim is an evaluation claim. This use of the word resisted makes an evaluation that there is either something wrong with going with this type of safe saw technology, or that the industry is making a mistake for doing so. They seem to make the point though of it’s a mistake by the industry for not accepting it because they talk about how great the invention is. It is relevant because it talks about the defiance of the industry to accept a piece of technology that sounds like it would be so helpful to all that use the industry’s table saws.