A. “Granted, diagnosing PTSD is a tricky thing.”
- This is an evaluative claim.
- The author knows and understands the characteristics PTSD victims experience, however many of these symptoms can be inconsistent or hard to identify as PTSD.
- Says diagnosing PTSD is “tricky.” Evaluating it as difficult.
B. “The result of a malfunctioning nervous system that fails to normalize after trauma and instead perpetrates memories and misfires life-or-death stress for no practical reason.”
- This is a causal claim.
- This claim explains why the faulty nervous system leads to the symptoms of PTSD.
- The cause is a malfunctioning nervous system which fails to normalize after trauma. The effect is the occurrence of memories and misfiring of life-or-death stress for no reason.
C. “Has causes ranging from one lightning-fast event to drawn-out terrors or patterns of abuse.”
- This is a categorical claim.
- Many aspects can cause/trigger PTSD
- An event might of permanently scared a soldier, or a soldier might have been a prisoner and tortured. Things like loud noises, or even driving in a car can bring out these fears and trigger PTSD.
- The author categorizes the causes of PTSD to be from lighting fast events, drawn out terrors, or patterns of abuse.
D. “In soldiers, the incidence of PTSD goes up with the number of tours and amount of combat experienced.”
- This is a factual claim.
- The author uses facts to explain how more tours and combat experience increases PTSD in soldiers.
- Could also be considered a causal claim.
- The cause is an increased number of tours and amount of combat experienced, and the effect is a greater chance of PTSD.
- This would make sense because the more a soldier sees while on duty, the higher chance they have of witnessing a traumatic instance, which creates a higher probability of them developing PTSD.
E. “As with most psychiatric diagnoses, there are no measurable objective biological characteristics to identify it. Doctors have to go on hunches and symptomology rather than definitive evidence.”
- This is an evaluative claim.
- The author is evaluating the fact that doctors must go on hunches and symptomolgy to identify PTSD because there are no measurable objective biological characteristics.
- In other words there is no scientific evidence that PTSD is happening on a biological scale in the human body.
- With no evidence the doctors can only give their best guess regarding PTSD patients.
F. “It’s invalidating. Even if something is certainly wrong—even if a couple of times he has inadvisably downed his medication with a lot of booze, admitting to Brannan that he doesn’t care if he dies; even if he once came closer to striking her than she ever, ever, ever could have imagined before he went to war.”
- This is an ethical claim.
- The author talks about how Caleb doesn’t care if he dies, due to the life ruining factors caused by PTSD.
- It is also discussed how Caleb has come closer to hitting his wife, more so than before he went to war.
- These are ethical claims because it shows the after effects of PTSD on family life and on Caleb’s own life.
- The PTSD is debilitating and makes Caleb depressed.
- The PTSD also might make Caleb more prone to striking his wife, which is an ethical problem.
One thought on “PTSD Claims—kevinbacon”
A. Nicely said.
B. Also very nice. My favorite word in that little clip is “perpetrates.” Can you explain the argument value of that one bit of vocabulary?
C. Well done.
D. Mostly agree. I’d call it both causal and evaluative, don’t you think? The cause is clear enough, but the relationship between longer time and higher chances requires evaluation.
E. Almost. I’m hearing this a lot. Data don’t need to be unimpeachable to qualify as evidence. Diagnoses, measurable characteristics, statistics can be variably collected, sorted, and analyzed to deliver variable results; none of those variations disqualifies the evidence AS EVIDENCE. We can certainly say the evidence allows for a variety of interpretations, but we can’t say, “There is no scientific evidence that PTSD is happening on a biological scale in the human body.”
Or so it seems to me.
F. There are certainly ethical considerations here. There’s also an indisputably causal claim or two and a good bit of evaluation. We’re just chatting here, KevinBacon. I’m not trying to call you wrong. Putting in the effort and carefully considering the subject matter are success in this exercise. You’re doing great. How you and I classify claims depends on how we view the evidence. 🙂
Strong work overall.