Source 1: In the article, popularmechanics.com/…673/bosch-reaxx-saw, Roy Berendsohn, author for Popular Mechanics talks about how the safer saw works and how Bosch originally created the saw.
Whether Bosch’s design is too similar is a matter for the courts. There’s no way to know for now how the case will play out. What we can tell you is that testing a saw that won’t cut through your finger is a pretty amazing experience.
We can see that this is an evaluative/proposal claim. The author writes about the experience of safer saws. He evaluates that testing the safe allows the people buying know that this safe is very useful and safe while using the tool.
Source 2: In this article, arstechnica.com/…/patent-disputes-stand-in-the-way-of-radically-safer-table-saws, author Timothy B Lee, talks about how the safer saw adapted and how new rules are being created for the tool. Also, he writes about how safer saw creators are facing lawsuits.
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.
This is a factual claim. The text explains that technology will start to expand and become mandatory in a couple of years. More people will find that the safe is very safe and get rid of their older saws to get the safer saws. The author also gives an evaluative/hypothetical claim that Gass could have a legal monopoly over the saw industry until at least 2021.
Source 3: In this article, cpsc.gov/…es/123115/tenenbaum10052011.pdf, this is a statement from Chairman Inez Tenenbaum of the CPSC regarding the rulemaking for reducing safer saw injuries.
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.
This is a factual numerical claim. This refers to all of the injuries over a year long from the safe. 67,300 were medically treated from the contact within a year apart. The claim helped generates that people are getting hurt and money is being spent to help treat the people.
Source 4: In this article, https://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/, the author writes about all of the financial bills that are happening because of the safer saw.
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.
The claim that the numbers of injuries made by table saws and the financial costs. This is an opinionated claim because they think that Gass is ruining other business and tools because the safe-saw would be a high profited item and will be around for a long-term.
Source 5: In this article, https://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-amputation-lawyer/, this discussion all of the lawsuits dealing with safe saws. They try to explain ways to refrain from using the saw.
Since 2000, a safety device called the “SawStop” has existed that could prevent nearly all table saw amputations, but manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw).
This is a factual claim, its main focus of the statement is to make sure people prevent saw amputations. The claim is ethical/moral claim because it blames the creators on why people are getting injuries from the saw. There are strict guidelines in using the saw so the manufacturers shouldn’t be blamed for the victim’s wrongdoings.
Counterintuitive 
I very much appreciate that you’re posting these assignments (better very late than never), Muggastackz, but since they’re freshly arrived for me to see, I need to tell you, very few claims are merely factual, and those you’ve identified as such are MUCH MORE than that. For example, the quote:
Your analysis:
Not factual at all. The claim that technology will expand in the future is completely speculative and subject to many factors. The question of whether the technology becomes mandatory is being debated in the courts. The claimants you’re quoting don’t PREDICT that it will, they’re DEMANDING that it not.
What they’re actually claiming is that nobody will buy an entry-level saw because of the doubling of cost.
You’re right. While Gass’s patents are a factual reality, the fear that his monopoly over the technology is assured is anything but certain. As it turns out, Bosch was able to completely screw Gass out of his “monopoly” by “inventing” technology sufficiently different than his to convince a court that they didn’t have to honor Gass’s patents while they marketed their “new” technology.
LikeLike