Manufacturer: “It’ll detect that in less than a thousandth of a second.” The manufacturer, Steve Gass, makes this claim about the SawStop in a way like it is a fact and as the manufacturer of this invention, he has most likely tested it to get this number. It is some important information about his invention that gives the customer some reassurance of how quickly his design will stop the saw when coming in contact with their finger. Therefore, this is both a factual and numerical claim. Based on how fast the saw came to a halt when coming in contact with the hotdog, this claim has almost made me feel convinced that this is what the saw is capable of doing. However, I was still a little doubtful about it since they did not test it with an actual finger, yet.

Customer: “In testing, we’ve repeatedly activated the brake mechanism on a number of our saws and haven’t seen any negative effect on the saws’ accuracy.” The woodworkers that this person has interviewed are customers who bought the SawStop table and have tested it many times out of concern for its accuracy. They, eventually, came to the conclusion that the SawStop table’s brake system is accurate. Therefore, this is an evaluative claim since they have made this judgment based on multiple tests with the SawStop and have failed to find a flaw in it. It is a reasonable evaluation of the product since they managed to test it and come to the conclusion that it is much safer than they thought it would be.

Industry Spokespeople: “The Power Tool Industry is resisting to adopt safety technology by arguing that it’s too expensive, unreliable and that consumers don’t want it.” This industry is generalizing a point that implicates usability and cost to what consumers want. This is another example of an evaluative claim since they made this claim based on their brief evaluations of the product. I find it understandable that they would argue that it is too expensive since the table will have to be replaced with a new one after the brake was used; however, I would have to disagree with their other claims about the product. It is evident that the product works properly. In addition, thinking from the perspective of a customer, a saw table that could save them from cutting themselves and/or losing a limb would be a favorable idea to them. The industry cannot just assume that a customer would favor being at risk more than safety.

Consumer Safety Advocates: “The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws.” The commission made a determination that table saws propose a risk to injuries. This is another evaluative claim because the commission made this claim based off on the overwhelming amounts of victims that have lost their limbs to a table saw. I would have to agree with this because it is no surprise that such a large blade can put many people at risk when it is being used.

Injured Plaintiffs: “I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.” Osorio, the victim of a table saw incident, has suffered greatly from accidently coming in contact with the blade and made this claim after reflecting on how traumatizing his situation was. This claim is both a recommendation and moral claim because he is not only suggesting that table saw manufacturers should prioritize a person’s safety, but he believes that it is morally right to think about the customer more than the money. Based on how many companies focus more on their business tractions, I would agree that they should focus on the safety of their customers more. It is understandable how this person claims that they should change their priorities since losing a part of your body is something that many cannot recover from.

Personal Injury Lawyers: “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws.” This website on an injury lawyer’s perspective is making a claim based on a numerical estimate of people that have been heavily injured after using a table saw. This is both a numerical and causal claim because there is not only some type of number involved in the claim, but the injuries from table saws is a cause and effect consequence. It is understandable that they could not make a proper estimate of the amount of people that were injured from table saws, but I would agree that there is a consequence for not being careful around sharp things.

Government Officials: “Including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.” This is suppose to be a numerical estimate of how many injuries and amputations were done on patients after suffering from a table saw incident. Therefore, this is a numerical claim. I am sure that many people have had to get a lot of medical treatment after going through such a tramatizing thing, however, for government officials, I feel like this estimate is a little small for a topic that is being heavily debated on. I would have expected the number to be a little higher.

News Reporters: “Gass didn’t just invent a safer table saw; he has also been a driving force behind its adoption over the last two decades.” The reporter is claiming that Steve Gass and his safe table saw invention was a huge push for safer table saws. This is an ethical claim because the reporter is making this judgement based on a situation of Gass promoting safer table saws for the last two decades. I do not recall anyone working on something that can reduce the number of table saw accidents until recently so I do not know who else was a “driving force” to promote safer table saws. Steve Gass’ table saw seems to be the most successful safe table saw that accurately fulfills its purpose. It is reasonable that companies and other people would challenge his invention to find a better way to make a safer table saw.