1. Who: Steve Gass
Claim: “The blade has a sensor that detects electrical conductivity. A piece of wood is not very conductive, so the saw goes right through it. A salty, wet finger is conductive… that triggers the system.”
This is an effective definitional claim. It is effective because it concisely states what makes the saw different from other saws: the electrical conductivity sensor and, what the product is is meant to do: cut through low conductive products such as wood, but not highly conductive fingers.
2. Who: Injured Plaintiffs
Claim: “..flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer.”
This is an evaluation claim. The plaintiff blames Bosh Tools for “rejecting” the product; according to him, the tool company was offered the SawStop technology and declined to use it. One of the major reasons the company denied the offer was because the SawStop would raise costs of their saws in comparison to other companies. This claim is effective because it states when the flesh detecting brake was offered during a meeting to get the product licensed and on the market and when the idea was “rejected.” The use of the word rejected gives the saw company’s decision to decline the offer a negative connotation. On the other hand, Bosh Tools could refute this claim by saying that the declined the offer for the time being until cheaper alternatives become available and the technology is 100 percent proven.
3. Who: Government Officials
Claim: “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 casual claim states that the table saw contact blade will be the solution to reducing the number of serious and often fatal table saw injuries that occur each year. The claim is very effective. The “unanimous” decision by the Commission to approve an advance notice of rule making (ANRP) gives the claim credibility. Because the organization is also “determined” to be apart of the “solution” to reduce the amount of “serious” injuries, the claim could easily persuade consumers that without the SawStop technology, a table saw is very dangerous and that there needs to be a stronger push to follow through with getting the product licensed.
4. Who: Manufacturers
Claim: “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 consequential claim is relevant and highly effective to the manufacturer’s arguments because it clearly states that a very low percentage of table saw injuries occur as a result of contact with the blade. Because there are very few injuries that are flesh related, the flesh recognizing technology would be an extra cost to both consumer and manufacturers that would not result in much protection. Although kickbacks might be a large percent of table saw injuries, Steve Grass argues that, with the use of his product, the injuries from the blade could be prevented.
5. Who: Media
Claim: “Um… no doubt”
This is a definitional claim. Here, the author of the article inserted their opinion of the subject matter, claiming that there is no doubt that Bosh Tool and various other power saw manufactures have been avoiding adding the SawStop technology to their items as an extra safety procedure. The claim is neither effective nor ineffective because it is subtly serves as a gateway between two separate statements.
Claim:“Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.”
The claim is made by the editor of Chief HANDY, a hardware magazine. The editor is a reliable and credible source because it is assumed he and the other writers of the magazine have an extensive understanding of power tools. The evaluation claim is effective because it makes the argument that the SawStop technology is worth installing based on the fact that many other power tools can cause an injury to people, as well. Steve Gass and the editor make the argument that by enabling the flesh detecting product, there will be a decrease in the amount of injuries caused by power tools. He states that the product is there to prevent power saw injuries and he hopes that in the future this technology will be used to innovate various other tools.
7. Who: SawStop Advocate
Claim: “They came back and said..’Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.”
The above quote was given by Steve Gass to the author of “If Table Saws Can be Safer, Why Aren’t They?” The author was first introduced to the SawStop technology on a plane ride and has since then been a strong supporter of the product. His editorial piece in favor of the product takes a strong turn when Gass says the above, quoted, evaluational claim. The claim states that the benefits of having safer power saws are not comparable with the possible decline in revenue from the product. The connotation of the quote, and the claim itself contradicts the argument it is trying to make. It was included purposefully by the author to enrage people and make them believe that the companies do not have the public’s best interest at hand.
8. Who: Industry Lawyers
Claim: “…the price of their table saws with the safety devices would ‘increase dramatically’…”
The casual claim from The Scmidt Law Firm shows a possible problem with the SawStop technology. One effect of using Steve Gass’ product would be the possible price rise, resulting in a dramatic change in consumer tastes. Since prices will rise, the law firm is claiming that there will be a decrease in power saw buyers, decreasing the profits of power tool companies, causing a serious economic problem. The economic issue will only increase as Steve Gass and the SawStop company will have a monopoly on the flesh detecting manufacturing industry.