1. Manufacturers claimed that sawstop was not “proven”
Steve Gass put his finger into the blade of a saw with sawstop. I’m not sure how the manufacturers think they can argue with that proof. This claim means that there is no irrefutable evidence that sawstop will prevent amputation or serious injury, but Steve’s finger looked fine to me.
2.”There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”
This claim is supposed to convince us that regulation requiring sawstop on all saws is “unnecessary and counterproductive”. This claim is not effective within the argument because nobody ever said sawstop was a substitute for safe work practices, and I highly doubt any table saw user would simply throw caution to the wind just because the saw probably won’t cut their hand off.
3.Industry spokespeople said “False positives can trip on common materials such as moist wood”
This claims not only that the sawstop system is prone to false positives, but also that they can be caused by common materials. This claim implies that such false trips would be rather frequent when working with moist wood. This claim is an attempt to convince the possible customers and government regulators that the system would be impractical for real-world use.
4. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a statement “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.”
This sentence contains many small claims, but I am most interested in the claim imlied by the word “meaningful”. What constitutes a meaningful revision? Wouldn’t any revision mean something to somebody, even if it’s just the assembly line worker who has to put one more screw in the table saw assembly? I think what he meant was that none of the major manufacturers started using sawstop or any other measure that would prevent severe injury in case of blade contact, but he doesn’t actually say that anywhere in the statement. If this guy wants action to be taken, maybe he should be more specific.
5.”Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury””
This is a definitional claim about the nature of the victim’s injuries, and one that is quite difficult to refute. Amputations are certainly permanent, and if he says it was traumatic, I believe him. This claim is effective because it creates an argument that nobody will challenge.
6.”not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”
Although technically true, this claim is weakly worded. In actuality, no table saw manufacturers have adopted sawstop. the only table saws on the market that have sawstop are the ones manufactured by Steve Gass, who never made table saws without sawstop, so even he did not “adopt” the system.
7.”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.”
This claim, directed toward manufacturers, is intended as a warning that CPSC wants to do something to make manufacturers make safer saws. Were this claim followed by some sort of specific information about possible “solutions”, it would be much more effective within the argument that table saw manufacturers are obligated to employ sawstop technology. As it stands, they are saying something akin to “we want to do something about this problem, but we have no idea what it will be”.
8. This inventor, a guy named Steve Gass, had actually figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents. Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.
This claim is part of a journalist’s article about sawstop, and it is effective as such. She is saying that he figured out how to prevent most table saw injuries, which is better than saying all injuries, which could be refuted by a hypothetical scenario in which someone falls on the non-operating table saw. She also cites the many demonstrations of the system’s effectiveness in the claim “he’s proved that it works”. This is a compelling and truthful claim that is backed by real evidence.