1. “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” – From an article on Power Tools Institute report on mandating SawStop technology, found here: http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit

This is a consequential claim that most table saw injuries are caused by kickback as opposed to blade contact. It is quite compelling because it directly refutes the reasons many are pushing to require SawStop or other blade safety mechanisms, although it is weakened by not giving the exact percentage of table saw injuries that are caused by blade contact.

2. “I believe every commercial job site and institutional shop should be equipped with this type of saw. The greatly reduced risk of injury (and the associated medical costs) more than justifies the saw’s higher price.” – From Larry Okrend, Editor in Chief of HANDY magazine.

This is a proposal claim. A compelling claim, reasonable, and sufficiently explained by the following sentence.

3. “The real controversy comes in that legislation like this would set a precedent that would mandate any technology that increases the safety of a dangerous power tool. This would necessarily come about since liability issues would force this reality through insurance rates and potential for lawsuits.” — From an article on Power Tools Institute report on mandating SawStop technology, found here: http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit

This is a consequential claim. By federally mandating that SawStop be used, it establishes a precedent where other safety technology would become federally mandated. This claim isn’t very reasonable,, because court cases are not decided on precedent alone and any number of other factors could affect whether safety technology is implemented. Because this quote is in an article regarding SawStop, it is also important to state that the federally government could not mandate who the companies purchase safety tools from, just that these safety tools are now implemented in products.

4. “It is wrong to say that consumers will pay more if safer saws are required because society is already paying $2 billion per year due to preventable table saw injuries.  Society will save money if safer saws are required.”—From an NCL fact sheet on saw safety, found here: http://www.nclnet.org/health/99-safety/567-facts-at-a-glance-the-inherent-danger-of-table-saws

A causal claim, the author is claiming that adopting these safer methods would save society money. The reason this claim is not very compelling is because society is not necessarily the same group as consumers. Just because society would save money doesn’t mean that consumers would be able to spend an extra 100 dollars on a saw.

5. “ 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.” — Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market

This is a consequential claim; Because Bosch did not employ more stringent safety devices in their saws, Wec suffered a permanent and traumatic injury. The reasonableness of this claim depends entirely on the circumstances of Wec’s injury. If he was using the saw carefully and properly, and then injury still occurred, it is a reasonable claim. However, if he was drinking heavily and then decided to use the saw, then the power company is not at fault for any resulting injury, because he did not follow proper safety precautions. Thus, the claim is only compelling if Wec also claims he was following proper safety procedure when the accident happened.

6. “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.” – From a law firm advertising their services for injuries relating to table saws, viewable here:  http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-injury-lawyer/

This is a categorical claim, that table saws belong in the category tool that causes the most injuries. Since the argument is that table saws require more stringent safety mechanisms, this claim is well placed. The problem is just stating table saws cause more injuries is not taking into account the circumstances of those injuries. A saw company is not liable for an injury that occurs due to user error, just like a car company is not liable for the thousands of accidents that occur due to the driver being negligent. Additionally, just because table saws cause more injuries then any other woodworking tool does not mean that the blade is the cause of all of those injuries. Taking those two points into account, it is not a very compelling claim.

7. “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” – From an October 5^th 2011 report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commssion, available here: http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/tenenbaum10052011.pdf

This is an evaluation claim, that any revisions made to the power tool industry standards were not effective in preventing injuries. Since the quote is from a report detailing the Commission’s decision to address table saw blade contact injuries, this claim strengthens their argument for imposing federal regulations by claiming that power tool companies won’t adopt any changes voluntarily. As such, it is compelling, because it provides a rationale for attempting to impose federal standards.

8. “That [a table saw that wouldn’t cut off your fingers] sounded like a good kind of saw to me…” – From an article titled “If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They?” by Chris Arnold, published on June 18, 2011.

Arnold is making an evaluation claim that the table saws that do not cut off fingers are good. This is an entirely sufficient claim, because there’s little need to prove that saws that prevent amputations are good. It is not entirely necessary, however, because few would hold the idea that more dangerous saws are better then safer ones. Thus, the claim is not that compelling, because it could have remained unstated without weakening the argument.