THE CONSTITUENT POOL.
Source 1
In the article “Feds Might Make Table-Saw Makers Adopt Radically Safer Technology,” the federal government’s consumer product safety commission is debating whether to make SawStop technology a requirement for all table-saws. Claims made:
- “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 Gass.”
- “The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work.”
These claims are made by the CPSC because they believe that the SawStop technology will save people physically and financially. These are factual since they provide the statistics around saw injuries and possible savings. These claims are explaining how having safety technology is reasonable.
Source 2
In the article, “Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saw Safer Drag On,” the author claims,
- “There was a big need for this invention,”
This is an ethical claim made by the author, a consumer, about the safety saw technology. The author believes that invention is important and necessary.
Source 3
In the article, “Despite Proven Technology, attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On,” the author, a news reporter, claims,
- “Every day, more than 10 Americans suffer amputations on what is by far the most dangerous woodworking tool: the table saw.
- Regulators in Washington, D.C., are moving closer to adopting a rule that would make new saws so much safer that they could prevent 99 percent of serious accidents.”
This is a factual claim that explains the statistics around the dangers of a saw. It is also a casual claim since the author is saying that the saw is the most dangerous woodworking tool.
Source 4
In the article “Table Saws Should Be Required To Have Safety Mechanisms, Says NCL,” the author says:
- A consortium of power tool manufacturers against the ruling, the Power Tool Institute, has issued a statement in opposition to the proposed rules. “The proposed rule requiring ‘active injury mitigation’ technology on all table saws could more than double the costs of the average table saw. Because the requirement would drive the costs too high for many consumers, small manufacturers may go out of business while larger manufacturers may exit the table saw market, reducing consumer choice and causing job losses throughout the country.”
Tool manufactures do not want the safety technology to be mandatory for every saw. They believe there will repercussions like higher prices and job loss.
- “Table saws have a demonstrated pattern of injury affecting thousands of victims and costing society billions of dollars every year,”
This is a response by the National Consumer League to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He is claiming that the the safety tool is actually saving society billions of dollars from the medical costs of amputations.
Source 5
In the article “$1.5 Million Award in Table Saw Injury Lawsuit,” Ororio was injured by a Ryobi table saw.
- Osorio injured his hand while using a Ryobi table saw while laying hardwood flooring. He required five surgeries, which totaled more than $384,000 in medical expenses. In the lawsuit, Osorio asked for only $250,000 in damages. The jury decided that to award Osorio $1.5 million instead.
There are cases where consumers are permanently injured by table saws. Many of them sue because the saw did not have safety technology.
Source 6
In the article, “Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase” the author says:
- 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. This claim is an evaluative claim because it is saying that with the safety technology, the occurrence of physical injuries will decrease. A problem that arises is that the industry involving table saws with suffer. This claim is arguable.
Counterintuitive 