Manufactures: “They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says”. Gass is claiming here that major tool companies do not want to apply SawStops to their table saws because having one of their products safer, won’t make companies’ profit dramatically increase. This claim is a casual claim because other major tool companies believe that if they applied SawStops to their table saws, it would not affect their money income. The cause would not have a major effect. I disagree with this claim because people who buy table saws would defiantly appreciate the fact that companies are trying to help the customer by making their products safer. If I were a hobbiest, I would definitely buy a table saw if it has SawStops mechanism in it. I think that having this mechanism in a company’s table saw would dramatically increase their sales.
Customers: “Even if the Reaxx didn’t have the injury-preventing mechanism, it would still be an impressive tool” This statement is explaining that even though the saw is a limb saver, without the mechanism, it would still be a great table saw. This is an evaluative claim because the customer is judging the effectiveness of removing a certain aspect of a product. This is a reasonable claim because the Reaxx table saw is reportedly one of the best table saws you can buy in genera; mlechanisms aside according to this article.
Industry Spokesperson: “If you guys don’t cooperate with us, the industry is going to get together and squish you”. Black and Decker executive told this to Gass because Gass was overconfident in his product and didn’t let the industry have time to think about it. Black and Decker’s claim is a casual claim because the industry spokesperson said that there will be consequences to their actions. Casual claims include cause and effect. I think this claim was reasonable in the industries defense because Gass shoved his idea down the industries throat according to the spokesperson.
Consumer Safety Advocates: “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws”. Bob Adler is claiming that the technology Gass has made is revolutionary and that based on what he knows, he thinks it can reduce the number of injuries from table saws. This is an evaluative claim because he is judging SawStops potential success and its’ characteristics. Since this claim is coming from a Safety Advocate, I think this claim is very persuasive considering that the product helps to reduce injuries from one of the most dangerous tools ever.
Injured Plaintiffs: “Table saw accidents are painful, life-changing and expensive”. This man who was injured by a standard table saw is advocating that SawStop would change so many lives by comparing his injuries from standard table saws. This is a factual claim because there is no doubt that being sliced by a table saw is painful. This claim is accurate since thousands of people are seriously injured by standard table saws each year.
Personal Injury Lawyers: “People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries, multiple surgeries, and medical bills they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work” The lawyers firm is emphasizing that table saw injuries can seriously ruin someone’s life and ruin their career. This is a factual claim since the circumstances and conditions exist beyond doubt. This claim is accurate because everyone knows that a saw spinning at insanely high speeds can hurt someone significantly.
Government Officials: “…the mandate could double the cost of entry-level table saws and destroy jobs in the power-tool industry”. Government officials are saying that if Gass’ technology becomes mandatory, he would have a monopoly and cause trouble in the business world lawfully. This claim is an ethical claim because if there is a mandate on Gass’ mechanism it can cause a monopoly which is unethical in itself. I agree with this claim because it will cause the loss of jobs and if table saws prices are doubled, than many companies will be affected.
News Reporters: “In 2015, 4,700 people in the US lost a finger or other body part to table-saw incidents”. This phrase is the first sentence of this article and is stating that many people have been hurt from standard table saws. This is a factual claim because the article is stating something that can be proven and quantified. This claim in the first sentence grabbed my attention and can grab anyone else’s because the number of people who have been hurt is really outrageous.