Safer Saws—Kevinbacon

First source
In the article “SawStop Sues Bosch over new Reaxx Table Saw and its Flesh-Detection and Blade-Breaking Technology” SawStop and Stephen Gass both claimed,

“that Bosch, and their new ReaXX table saw, which also features flesh-detection and blade brake technology, is infringing on SawStop’s patented inventions.” This means that Bosch stole Gass’s idea for the safe stopping blade. They infringed (stole) on Gass’s patent.

The type of claim that is being made here from Gass and his company is an evaluative claim. This is true because this is an evaluation of a situation. Gass evaluated the actions of Bosch as infringing on his patent. Gass’s claim can be argued since there are two sides to this situation, those who think Bosch stole Gass’s idea and those who think Bosch did not copy the SawStop technology. This claim that Gass is making can be supported by his company’s expertise on the saw technology. I agree with this claim and I believe it makes sense to argue for it. In short, the big saw companies didn’t accept Gass’s technology and they turned him down. After having the opportunity to adopt the SawStop technology  they decided to make their own safe saws. Gass gave them the idea to make a safe saw, and they are indirectly using his ideas to make technology similar to his. They are exploiting his ideas and didn’t even give him a chance to market his saw to the world. It seems as if the larger saw companies are monopolizing the market, trying to force Gass out of business. Gass also had a patent for his technology.

Second source
In the article “Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit” multiple major tool manufactures claim many technical, practical, and financial problems with mandating the SawStop technology. These are some of the claims made:

• “The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer.
• Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that many manufacturers view as near-extortion and monopoly position. This fee would also be passed on to consumers.
• “False positives” or “nuisance trips” produce downtime and expenses. False positives can trip on common materials such as moist wood (think freshly delivered pressure treated lumber).
• A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)
• A false trip mandates replacement of the saw blade, since it is unknown whether the carbide teeth may be jarred or broken loose – creating a hazard. As most pros know, blades can be upwards of $100 each”

These claims made by the power-tool industry are factual claims. They are factual because they use real world facts and data to support the fact that the implementation of the SawStop would lead to negative financial, practical, and technical effects. These factual claims are very persuasive, they show real prices and implications of the SawStop. For example, one of the points is a false trip of the machine costs the user $59 every time. The fact that there is a chance of a false trip leads to impracticable and expensive outcomes.

Third source
In the article “Table Saw Injury Lawyer” the lawyer makes the claim,

“Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”

This is a factual claim. The writer of the article answers the question of “How many people are injured?” The article pulls real information and facts and states that there are over 40,000 table saw accidents every year. These lead to over 4,000 amputations. These facts leads to the notion that table saws cause more injuries than any other power tool. I agree with this claim because table saws are deadly and with user error could most definitely result in over 40,000 injuries. This also seems like a lot of injuries so it would make saws the most deadly woodworking tool.

Fourth source
In the article “Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase” the author claims,

“The SawStop story is about an industry’s ability to resist a major safety advance that could, by now, have prevented countless disfiguring injuries, but might have been bad for business.”

This claim is an evaluative claim. The claim is evaluative because it claims that with the SawStop technology “countless disfiguring injuries” might have been prevented. It evaluates that with this technology users would be more safe and less fingers would have been chopped off. It also evaluates the fact that this technology might have been bad for business. This is due to the financial and technical implications that come with the SawStop saws. I agree with this claim because the SawStop has proven to be effective, but at the same time costly because false trips destroy the blade and the machine every time.

Fifth source
Chairman of the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission, Inez M. Tenenbaum, makes the statement,

“I was moved by what I heard from the victims of these injuries, whose lives were changed forever, due to one split-second miscalculation while using a table saw. To these victims and to all of the other victims who have suffered life-altering injuries from table saws, I want you to know that your efforts to improve the safety of these tools have made a difference. Moreover, this agency, under my leadership, is firmly committed to exploring how to prevent these kinds of injuries from continuing to occur.”

This is an ethical/moral claim. It is ethical because Tenenbaum says he was moved by the victims of the saw injuries. He believes that it is ethically right to figure out a solution to stop these injuries from occurring. It is also moral because what he saw happened to the victims was horrible. It was not fair that these victims had to suffer due to bad safety conditions, that could be improved. This could also be considered a causal claim. It is causal because there is a cause and effect aspect to the statement. The cause is the fact that he was impacted by the victims of saw injuries, and the effect from this was the promise that his agency is firmly committed to figuring out how to prevent saw injuries from happening. This claim is reasonable because what the chairman saw moved him, and convinced him to help these severely injured people.