A. He’s one of 103,200, or 228,875, or 336,000 Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and came back with PTSD, depending on whom you ask, and one of 115,000 to 456,000 with traumatic brain injury.
—1. This sentence has two quantitative claims: “103,200, or 228,875, or 336,000 Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and came back with PTSD” and “one of 115,000 to 456,00 with traumatic brain injury.”
—2. “depending on whom you ask” is making the claim that there are differences on what qualifies as PTSD; Depending on who is reaching the conclusion, the measurements of qualifications will vary, leading diagnosis to vary.
B. Caleb has been home since 2006, way more than enough time for Brannan to catch his symptoms. The house, in a subdivision a little removed from one of many shopping centers in a small town in the southwest corner of Alabama, is often quiet as a morgue.
—1. “Caleb has been home since 2006, way more than enough time for Brannan to catch his symptoms.” This is a causal claim as well as an evaluative claim. Since Caleb has been home with Brannan, it has led her to catch his symptons of PTSD. An evaluation must be required to define how long it takes for symptoms to spread.
—2. “The house, in a subdivision a little removed from one of many shopping centers in a small town in the southwest corner of Alabama,” is a defintion claim. The author is describing the location of the home. “is often quiet as a morgue” is an analogy claim, saying the quietness of the home is similar to that of a morgue
C. It’s called traumatic brain injury, or TBI, from multiple concussions. In two tours, he was in at least 20 explosions—IED, vehicle-borne IEDs, RPGs. In one of them, when a mortar or grenade hit just behind him, he was thrown headfirst through a metal gate and into a courtyard.
—1. “It’s called traumatic brain injury, or TBI, from multiple concussions.” This is a definition claim as well as a causal claim. Traumatic brain injury is the result of multiple concussions.
—2. “In two hours, he was in at least 20 explosions-IEDs, vehicle-borne IEDs, RPGs.” Numerical/Categorical claim
D. He wasn’t diagnosed for years after he got back, despite Brannan’s frantic phone calls to the VA begging for tests, since her husband, formerly a high-scoring civil-engineering major at Auburn University, was asking her to help him do simple division. When Caleb was finally screened for the severity of his TBI, Brannan says he got the second-worst score in the whole 18-county Gulf Coast VA system, which serves more than 50,000 veterans.
—1. “He wasn’t diagnosed for years after he got back,despite Brannan’s frantic phone calls to the VA for tests,” is an ethical claim against the VA for not being of assistance to veteran families.
—2. “Formerly a high-scoring civil engineering major at Auburn University, was asking her to help him do simple division.” This is causal claim that traumatic brain damage leads to knowledge decline.
—3. “When Caleb was finally screened for the severity of his TBI” is making the claim that he was waiting far too long to be screened. This is an ethical and evaluative claim.
—4. He got the second-worst score in the whole 18-country Gulf Coast VA system, which served more than 50,000 veterans.” is an evaluative numerical claim as well as an evaluative causal claim, that because it had taken him so long to be evaluated, his symptoms got worse.
Counterintuitive 
A1. Namaste, you’re mistaken about what is and is not a factual claim. These numerical claims are claims of fact (factual claims) whether they’re true or not, whether or not they agree. Also, claims don’t need to CONTAIN their evidence or proof. And it’s not a fair refutation of a claim to say, “It didn’t provide the evidence to back itself up.”
A2. Not quite. “Depending on whom you ask” does certainly mean that different entities come to different conclusions, but that doesn’t mean they work from no evidence. They may all have the same data but calculate what qualifies as PTSD using different models or measurements.
Right? We might even say, “Depending on what we consider to be good evidence of PTSD, the numbers of diagnoses vary widely.” There’s nothing “non-factual” about that.
B1. I’d call “long enough to catch his symptoms” a combination of causation and evaluation. Catching symptoms (or catching a disease) is a cause-and-effect proposition. Germs or environmental conditions result in an illness. How long it takes for the symptoms to spread requires evaluation.
B2. Agreed.
C1. Agreed, and well said.
C2. Yep.
D1. Very nice.
D2. Very nice.
D3. Agreed. Evaluative and ethical.
D4. Mostly agreed. I doubt there’s any evidence that not being diagnosed early worsens traumatic brain injury, but I could be wrong. The harm done was in making him suffer without help longer than he needed to.
Despite my MANY Notes, this is very strong work, Bean. You’ve been very receptive to critique so far; my reaction to that is to provide you as much as I can budget time for. If it ever becomes too much, or discourages you, please understand it feels generous to me, not punitive. I hope it feels the same way to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Professor! I have made corrections to my work and your instruction has given me an overall better understanding of how claim analysis works. However, it does the exact opposite of bringing me to discouragement. I am pleased that you seem overall happy with my work. You have been offering so much of your advice and guidance for the benefit of my success in this class and into the future. I appreciate it very much, thank you.
Never too much!
LikeLike
We’ll see. 🙂
LikeLike