Manufacturers – “When skin contacts the blade, the signal changes” The manufacturer of the SawStop explains the mechanism for the safety feature. This is a Causal Claim because they are saying the feeling of the skin causes the signal to change. The conductivity from the skin is what causes this signal change. This claim is effective in explaining to those looking into the technology what exactly is happening to make the saw safer than a normal one.
Customers – “[The SawStop] has made our school a safer place” This can be seen as a Moral Claim. The teachers account of his students accident reveals that due to the SawStop the student suffered only a minor injury when there was circumstance for one of severity. Of course people want schools to be safe environments. He is appealing to those with kids especially that want to know their children are in the safest learning environment possible. No one would reject the idea of having the SawStop if they knew it could only increase the safety of students.
Industry Spokespeople – “Table saw accidents are painful, life-changing and expensive” A Categorical Claim puts table saw accidents in the category of highly negative situations. These accidents are not just painful. Nor are they just life-changing or simply just expensive. They are all three. Being in the table saw accident causes pain, which most people try to avoid in life. It also is a life changing experience that can happen in a split second and you basically have no control over, unless you took preventative measures like using a saw stop. The accidents are also expensive, whether its medical bills, loss of salaries, or increased workers compensation. I think it’s safe to say people want to avoid having to pay more money than necessary if they can avoid it. Table saw accidents become part of the category of situations that are avoided at all costs when possible.
Consumer Safety Advocates – “within milliseconds” This is how fast they saw the blade pulls away from the point of contact with the body. This is a Numerical Claim. A number is given to describe just how advanced and accurate this technology is. If it took one second, well damage could still be done. A blade spinning however fast it normally goes could cause a nice injury in a second. So it’s a good thing this safety mechanism takes only milliseconds to react. This happens in such a short amount of time that no real, significant damage could possibly even take place.
Injured Plaintiffs – “on the same day and within twenty minutes of each other” One consumer recounts the accidents of a family member and friend. His Factual Claim describes an unfortunate situation. His uncle and the friend both managed to slice off the tip of their fingers within twenty minutes of each other. They didn’t have a safety mechanism, if you couldn’t tell. The fact that accidents occur that commonly, well that’s scary enough to make anyone drop some money to prevent an accident in all ways possible.
Personal Injury Lawyers – “manufacturers have refused” This law firm makes the Evaluative claim that manufacturers of table saws are intentionally disregarding safety features. There are available options to make their own product less of a liability and safety risk, but they will not voluntarily invest in this. They know the option and they refuse it. If someone gets hurt from one of their safety feature-less saws, it would be hard not to hold the manufacturer partially responsible. Why would they be selling a product that isn’t as safe as it could possibly be? They are knowingly putting their consumers at risk.
Government officials – “would prevent thousands of amputations” This Numerical Claim shows the large impact that would occur from the federal regulators requiring the use of safety technology. If there was a success rate of 10, or maybe even 50, people may not be so easily persuaded. But the possibility for thousands of amputations being prevented is a pretty meaningful number. This claim pushes people to support the mandate by the Feds.
News Reporters – “Always an excuse for why they can’t do something that will prevent injury or save lives” The article discusses the possibility for mandatory safety features. This is a Quantitative Claim of companies reluctance to have the mandate passed. The companies will always have an excuse. The main reason for this excuses being money. Companies are focused on making the highest possible profit, if that means putting some consumers at risk then so be it. They want what is in their best interest and they will always have an excuse to keep them moving in that direction.