source 1: –
In the article, “The Saw That Won’t Cut Off Your Fingers Has Arrived” the quotation is as follows:
Next up was the famous hot dog test, a bit of engineering showmanship pioneered by the inventor of this technology, Saw Stop. The demonstrator slowly and gently feeds a hot dog into the blade and bang, the same result. The blade disappears and won’t tear apart the meat.
This is an evaluative claim, it involves judgement that can be arguable and can be supported with evidence. Because it tells us the results that it stop as soon as it touched the meat. Also it is evaluated that with the new technology there would be less injuries. But also on the other hand it doesn’t sound true because it is not that there are no problems with saw stop. There are problem like when the brakes are applied then there are needed to be repaired after every usage due to which it is very expensive.
source 2: –
In the article, “10 amputations a day: the need for a safer table saw” the quotation is as follows:
10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.
It is an evaluative claim that is making judgement but looks more like a moral claim. It is because it states a conclusion at the end of the article. Also it states that due to the usage of saw stop, the injuries and amputations will be reduced. It also provides a facts so it is factual claim, also as it explains the support of the new and safer mechanism saw-stop.
source 3: –
In the article, “Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology” the quotation is as follows:
In 2015, 4,700 people in the US lost a finger or other body part to table-saw incidents. Most of those injuries didn’t have to happen, thanks to technology invented in 1999 by entrepreneur Stephen Grass. By giving his blade a slight electric charge, his saw is able to detect contact with a human hand and stop spinning in a few milliseconds. A widely circulated video shows a test on a hot dog that leaves the wiener unscathed.
It is a factual claim. As it provides us with facts and figures about the injuries that had happened in 2015 about how 4700 people lost their fingers or other body parts in table saw machines. It is also an evaluative claim, as it concludes that it injuries have decreased since invention of stop saw by Stephen grass. And also it explains the working and mechanism of the machine.
source 4: –
In the article, “STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN INEZ M. TENENBAUM” the quotation is as follows:
Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years. I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.
It is a causal as well as factual claim. As it provides the figures and facts about the injury costs from 2007-2008 of 67,300 people. Even it provides the justification about how the usage of table saws before the saw-stop caused more injuries than expected.
source 5: –
In the article, “Table Saw Injury Lawyer” the quotation is as follows:
In 2012, California lawmakers tried to pass a law that would require all table saws sold after January 1, 2015 to have flesh-sensing safety technology. Proponents said the law would prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs to society. The matter passed in the state assembly 52-2, but failed to pass in the California Senate.
It is a factual and an evaluative claim. Because it provides the facts about the law passing for the usage of new technology of saws i.e., the saw-stops instead of table saws. Even it evaluates and concludes that the order unfortunately didn’t pass in the California senate. And if it was passed, then there would be an subsequent decrease in the injuries and would also save billions of dollars in the treatments.