1. “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.” The claim being made by a representative of many different manufacturers is a categorical claim. Manufacturers do not want to raise their prices for the expensive technology but acknowledge the fact that if consumers want purchase a SawStop saw, they have nothing stopping them.
2. “After almost 30 accident free years, I finally upgraded from a cheap table saw and buying Sawstop was a no-brainer. Aside from the awesome safety feature, they are just plain well-engineered saws.” This is a resemblance claim. Customers are looking back on old saws and seeing the advantages of the new saws as much safer and effective.
3. “The lower-priced consumer bench-top saws will disappear from the market.” The claim being made is consequential. Industry spokespeople are lobbying that if SawStop was implemented into all table saws, the price would rise, and entry-level table saws would vanish from the market due to high cost.
4. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws.” This statement is an evaluation claim. A commissioner for the Consumer Product Safety Commission lobbies that SawStop could potentially stop all future injuries associated with table saws from ever happening.
5. “I’ve been able to find ways to do it, but there’s no feasible way to turn a profit. It takes me ten times longer to accomplish anything.” This is an evaluation claim. The injured plaintiff explains how after his injury, working is nearly impossible for him. His injuries are too severe.
6. “The plaintiff claims that ‘flesh detection and braking technology’ and ‘user friendly blade guard(s)’ have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when it is touched by human flesh.” This is a proposal claim. The law firm is claiming that if the manufacturers of the table saws accepted the SawStop proposal given to them years ago, the technology would have been implemented in their table saws, preventing a mans injury and preventing their lawsuit.
7. “…issuing a mandatory standard, such as that requested in the petition, would force manufacturers to use a patented technology. As such, the patent holders would have a monopoly and would realize a sizeable financial benefit. Many commenters expressed concern that the petitioners are seeking financial gain.” This claim is consequential. Government officials recognize the benefits of having SawStop as a mandatory implementation for all table saws, yet bring up the fact that a monopoly of the market would take place since no other company is making any type of similar technology. This has yet to be brought up in any other articles I have read on the topic and shows us another valid point in the SawStop debate aside from the fact that people strictly want safety or companies arguing about price.
8. “Table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year.” This is a consequential claim. The author of the post is siding in favor of the SawStop technology trying to gain access to peoples emotions to back up their claim.