Gass
“Within a few thousandths of a second, the blade slammed to a stop.” This is a quantitative claim as the Gass, the manufacturer, is using data collected in testing to describe the speed with which the product he has created works. This claim is used to bolster his pitch of the safety benefits his product provides, enticing consumers to believe in his product and eventually purchase it.

Customer
“SawStop’s blade guard is very low-profile and convenient”. This is an evaluative claim, as it comes from a customer judging the product that Gass and SawStop have created. It’s made to compliment the product, focusing on the efficient design of the blade guard itself. In making this claim, the customer tells other’s their opinion on the design of the product, bringing attention and possibly encouraging others to invest in it.

Industry Spokespersons
“putting profits before the safety of their customers.” This is a combination of evaluative and numerical claims, as the claim is judging the lack of putting consumer safety first by alleging that other companies find profits to be more important. Although not backed by specific numerical data, this claim acts as an attack on the industry for failing to put consumer safety first. Comparing this action to that of other industries protesting against implementing a more expensive safety feature, the claim calls out the group fighting against the implementation of this feature.

News Reporters
“it could be that brands want this rulemaking to pass.” This is an evaluative claim, as the author is suggesting that the lack of strongly formed opposition to the safety regulations being proposed could mean that the companies do not truly oppose it. This is because if the regulation was to pass, the brands would not have to start creating this technology until SawStop’s patents expire, which is years away. The strength of the patents that SawStop possesses prevents other brands from creating similar technology, so although the regulations would pass, they would not really be required to do anything about it until the future.

Outraged Plaintiffs
“would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger” This is a claim made by an injury lawyer who is saying what could have happened had the technology been mandatory. This is a hypothetical claim as it is saying what could have happened. In doing so, the lawyer puts the blame on those opposing the regulations, citing the damage that is caused by the lack of safety requirements.

Government Officials
“In 2015, 4,700 people in the US lost a finger or other body part to table-saw incidents.” This is a numerical claim, factually citing how many table-saw incidents resulted in someone losing a finger or other body part in 2015. Showing the dangers of table-saw incidents, this claim is aimed at informing consumers of the dangers that table-saw accidents may pose. By doing so, it informs the reader that these saws must be used carefully as they can be very dangerous.

Manufacturers
“…many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology” This is an evaluative claim, as it takes the other side’s perspective saying that the technology is too expensive and should not be used. I disagree with this claim, as it is placing the financial implications over that of potentially saving thousands of people from accidents. Health and safety is more important than an increase in price, therefore the justification that it should not be implemented due to an increase in price is invalid in my opinion.

Industry Lawyers
“medical bills they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.” This is a causal claim, stating that victims of table-saw accidents will not be able to pay the medical bills associated with the accidents due to their inability to work as a result of their injury. With many injuries caused by these saws resulting in amputations, some victims may truly never be able to continue their jobs, making this claim accurate in saying they may not be able to afford their medical bills.