1. Manufacturers- “It would cost approximately $100 per saw to put automatic safety technology on every table saw sold in the United States.” This is a consequential claim because it shows the cost that the companies would have to spend every time the SawStop is fired. This claim is good for manufactures because they would have raise the price for their saws which could lead to a drop in sales.
2. Customers- “Society will save money if safer saws are required.” This is a casual claim because is saw were safer than it would cause the customers the save money. This is compelling because is saws were safer the prices would go up but it would save thousands of dollars in medical costs. Customers wouldn’t mind spending extra money to ensure their safety.
3. Industry Spokespeople-“A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade, most are from kickback.” This is an evaluation claim because it compares the number of injuries due to contact to the number of injuries due to kickbacks. This claim is great for spokespeople from industries who oppose SawStop because it shows that most injuries aren’t from blade contact, so adding SawStop isn’t worth it in the long run.
4. Consumer Safety Advocate- Consumer safety advocates claim that, “…if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.” This is a casual claim because it states that is there was a madatory rule put in place, then companies would have to adopt new technologies and would make it more difficult to get approved but would eventually make saws safer.
5. Injured Plaintiffs- “Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market,” explains Ryszard Wec’s claims in Cook County Court. Wec says that, “his permanent and traumatic injury could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.” This is a casual claim because it shows how the lack of safer technology caused serious injuries to the victim. This is compelling because if the problem was addressed when the technology was first brought up than this injury might have never happened.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers-“If this safety mechanism had been included in the table saw, Osorio’s injuries would have been limited to a 1/8-inch cut on only one finger, instead of two unusable fingers and three fingers with no feeling, requiring five surgeries and $384,000 in medical expenses. The court rewarded Osorio $1.5 million in damages.” This is an evaluation claim because it compares what happened to Osorio when he sustained his injuries to what would have happened if the saw he used was made with SawStop. This is compelling because it is such a huge difference in outcomes.
7. Government Officials- “California legislators are trying to pass a law that would require all table saws sold after January 1, 2015 to have flesh-sensing safety technology. Proponents say the law would prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs to society.” This is a proposal claim because it addresses the problem which are the unsafe saws that are being sold. Then states solution which is the legislators of California putting a law in place. Lastly, the justification which is to prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs.
8. News Reporters- “Over the years, he’s proved that it (SawStop) works, too.” This is a definitional claim because it tells us SawStop is proven to be safe and prevent injuries. Reporters use this as a backing for their own claims and opinions on the new technology. It is hard to have a report without cold hard facts.