1. Manufacturer:

From: Ask me how I made this link, Marty..

“A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback. ” This type of claim is a evaluation claim. This claim is relevant to the overall argument that the SawStop technology should not be mandatory. If most of the injuries do not even include contact with the blade it should not be mandatory to implement the SawStop technique that will just cause manufacturers and customers more money. They should be more focused on finding a way to reduce kickback rather than focusing on injuries involving the blade. This claim is shows that the SawStop technology is not necessary by stating that it is only a low percentage of the annual table saw injuries .

2. Customers:

From:http://www.handymanclub.com/projects/blogs/articletype/articleview/articleid/5879/taking-table-saw-safety-seriously

Larry Okrend, editor in Chief of HANDY magazine, made the following claim. “Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.” This claim is a evaluation claim. This helps his argument that mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary by claiming that any tool can cause serious injury. But, Steve Gass never claims that you can not be seriously injured by any tool. This claim is not effective because no one is arguing that you can not be injured by other tools. Steve Gass is only trying to make table saws safer he is not claiming anything about the other tools. Larry’s claim is not helpful and he should focus more on table saw’s specifically when trying to prove his point.

3. Industry Spokespeople:

From:http://www.protoolreviews.com/news/editorials/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit

“Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added cost, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers.” This is a proposal claim. This is saying that the customer can decide wether or not they want to pay the added cost for the SawStop technology. This claim backs up the major issue that it should not be mandatory by leaving the choice up to the individual consumer. This is extremely relevant and effective because if someone believes the technology is necessary they will be willing to pay more. If not, someone should not be made to pay the extra cost for the SawStop technology if they do not want to.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates:

From:http://www.nclnet.org/health/99-safety/567-facts-at-a-glance-the-inherent-danger-of-table-saws

“Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.” This is a definitional claim that states a fact about injuries caused by table saws. Showing how large the number of Americans that go to the emergency room because of table saws makes this claim appealing. It helps emphasize how dangerous table saws are. By showing how dangerous they are it is proving why the SawStop technology is needed.

5. Injured Plaintiffs:

From:http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/10/Injured_Man_Says_Bosch_Tool_Lobbied_Feds_to_Keep_Safer_Power_Saws_off_the_Market.htm

Ryszard Wec claims “the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”  This is a evaluation claim. Wec blames Bosch for his injury because they were offered the SawStop technology and did not use it. This claim is effected because it provides a specific example of a serious injury that could have been prevented by the SawStop technology. This allows you to feel for Wec and helps persuade people to believe the technology should be mandatory. It also makes it apparent that not having the technology could cause legal issues for manufacturers, which may cause them to implement the SawStop technology.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers:

From:http://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-injury-lawyer/

“Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.” This is both a proposal claim and Categorical claim. It is a proposal claim by saying that it is unfortunate that manufacturers have refused to adopt it. It is categorical by stating  that the manufacturers have refused to adopt the technology. This claim is not relevant or effective. By just saying that it is unfortunate does nothing for anyone. Without any proof or reason to why it is unfortunate the argument is not effective. This claim is very dull and does not bring stand out or bring anything in particular to your attention. The table saw injury lawyer is just stating and opinion with no support. It is not unfortunate for careful people or people who can not afford to pay extra for the SawStop technology.

7. Government Officials:

From:http://www.cpsc.gov/PR/tenenbaum10052011.pdf

Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum says “Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.” This is a definitional claim becuase it is stating what serious injuries can be caused by table saws. It is also consequential claim by claiming that table saws impact those that are injured and their families forever. This claim plays to your emotions and allows you to feel how table saw injuries have negatively impacted consumers lives. This kind of claim is very effective because people are easly persuaded by their emotions. It is also very relevant by stating how serious the injuries that can be caused by table saws without the SawStop technology are.

8. News Reporters:

From:http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137258370/if-table-saws-can-be-safer-why-arent-they

This claim is from NPR’s Chris Arnold. ” It turned out he had a pretty amazing story to tell.” This is a proposal claim. He is saying that how Steve Gass came up with the SawStop technology is amazing. This is not very relevant in proving why the technology needs to be mandatory. This claim is completely off topic and not compelling. It assumes that everyone thinks the story is amazing. This claim does not persuade anyone or make anyone realize why SawStop needs to be on all table saws.