But established makers of power tools vehemently object. They say the mandate could double the cost of entry-level table saws and destroy jobs in the power-tool industry. They also point out that Gass holds dozens of patents on the technology. If the CPSC makes the technology mandatory for table saws, that could give Gass a legal monopoly over the table-saw industry until at least 2021, when his oldest patents expire.
1.This is a claim is made by industry spokespeople. They are making an opinionated claim that the saws have a negative impact on the product and manufacturing costs. There is no evidence to back the claim that this new mandate could destroy jobs in the power-tool industry.
They further it with a factual claim that Gass has dozens of patents for the technology used to make is saws safer (but with a revolutionary idea like that why wouldn’t you).
The author then adds an evaluative/hypothetical claim that Gass could have a legal monopoly over the table saw industry until 2021 at least.
At the same time, table-saw related injuries cost society billions every year. 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.
“You commissioners have the power to take one of the most dangerous products ever available to consumers and make it vastly safer,” Gass said at a CPSC public hearing on Wednesday.
2. The top claim is made by The Consumer Product Safety Commission which is an organization dedicated to, well, consumer safety. They make an evaluative claim by stating that up to $4,000 could be saved per saw sold. Hospital bills are expensive and losing a guy on the job for a serious injury could cost the companies money.
3. The article then follows up with a claim by Gass stating that the CPSC has the power to make an extremely dangerous product and make it vastly safer. It is an evaluative claim. It could also be an opinion depending on what other consumer products you’re measuring it with.
Over the years, top saw makers and the Power Tool Institute, their trade group, have defended the design of their saws and the decision to snub SawStop.
They’ve argued that injury numbers have been inflated and that the government’s estimate of $2.36 billion in annual costs to society from table saw accidents—including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering—is exaggerated. They say the market for popular, lightweight saws costing as little as $100 to $200 would be destroyed by the added expense of SawStop. They note that under some circumstances, SawStop can stop a blade without skin contact–such as when the blade touches conductive materials like metal or very wet wood. In such cases, the owner usually has to replace the blade and an electronic cartridge.
4. The claim that the numbers of injuries made by table saws and the financial costs of accidents are inflated were made both by table saw manufacturers and the trade group, the Power Tool Institute. This is an opinionated claim because they believe that Gass is destroying the market for lightweight saws. They also believe that the cost of replacing a blade and an electronic cartridge further increases the long term cost of the SawStop.
According to testimony by David Peot, Ryobi’s former director of advanced technologies: “There certainly was a feeling that if a single company invents or improves a product that could have an effect on product liability, then other manufacturers could be at a disadvantage if they don’t have that on their product.”
5. This claim was made by a former Ryobi director of advanced technologies. His opinion is that if one company has an innovative design that improves product liability then any other saw manufacturer is at a disadvantage. Which ties into the point from earlier that it could cause massive financial loss for other companies if one company owned the technology given that Gass’ patents are lasting up until 2021 at the least.