- “When skin contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive.”-Manufacturers. This is a causal claim. It is saying because of the conductive properties of the human body, the contact causes the signal to change. This is a compelling claim for the manufacturers because it shows just how the SawStop works.
- “Society will save money if safer saws are required.”-Customers. This is a causal claim. It saying that requiring safer saws will cause society to save money. This is a compelling claim from the consumers. It is basically saying that they don’t mind spending the extra money for the safer technology because in the end they will be saving money.
- “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”-Industry Spokespeople. This can either be considered a causal claim or an evaluation claim. It is a causal claim because it states that most injuries are caused by the kickback. It is an evaluation claim because it compares blade contact table saw injuries with kickback table saw injuries. It is an effective argument for the spokespeople because it shows that the SawStop may not really be helping prevent a ton of injuries compared to something that may prevent the kickback.
- “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,”-Consumer Safety Advocates. This is a causal claim. It states that this technology causes a reduction in all table saw injuries. It is an effective claim because it shows that the SawStop is helpful in stopping injury.
- “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market,”-Injured Plaintiffs. This is a causal claim. It states that by not employing safer alternatives, it has caused for the SawStop to not become state of the art. This is a compelling case because it shows that the major tool producers have really shut the SawStop out in order to keep their products selling.
- “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”- Personal Injury Lawyers. This is an evaluation claim because it is comparing table saws to all other woodworking tools. I do not find the claim to be very compelling but it does successfullly refute those who say that the SawStop technology is useless because it is only available on the table saws.
- “I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome.” —Government Officials. This is a categorical claim because it says that table saw injuries belong to the category of gruesome injuries. It is compelling because it adds severity to table saw injuries and thus proves that safety precautions are needed.
- “Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.”-News Reporters. This is a definitional claim. This claim states that the SawStop is proven safe. The reporter says that the proof that the manufacturer has provided is enough to deem this product safe and effective.