1.”Brannan Vines has never been to war, but her husband, Caleb, was sent to Iraq twice, where he served in the infantry as a designated marksman. 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.
- This is a factual claim, as it is proving data, although somewhat not definite, saying how Caleb did go to war and he did come back with PTSD as well as a traumatic brain injury.
- Discussing the specific numbers leads to confirmation of this being a factual claim as it is a “fact” that those numbers are the approximate amount of people who go to war and come back with PTSD.
- It is also a fact that Brannan has never been to war, with the rest of the article discussing how she does in fact acquire symptoms of PTSD.
2. Caleb has been home since 2006, way more than enough time for Brannan to catch his symptoms
- This is an casual claim, as it is claiming that it has “been enough time” for Brannan to catch PTSD; it did not state a certain amount of time that would cause her to gain these sympotoms.
- There is no definitive evidence of this being caused by her husband, as this quote claims that he “gave” it to her.
3. “…but still not the guy you picture when you see his “Disabled Veteran” license plates. Not the old ‘Nam guy with a limp, or maybe the young legless Iraq survivor, that you’d expect.”
- This is a comparative claim because it compared him having a “disabled veteran” license plate to the veterans that are missing limps or other noticable traits one may come to associate with veterans.
- Although you cannot see anything wrong with Caleb, such as the “veterans with a limp,” that he is being compared to he still has a disability due to his PTSD.
4. “Whatever is happening to Caleb, it’s as old as war itself.”
- This is an analogy claim as it is saying that although PTSD goes back far, it is as old as “war”, which historically has always been a part of cultures all around the world.
- This is a very bold claim as warfare goes back so far in history, that to say that the same goes with PTSD is a serious and analogical claim.
5. “In 2006, the British Ministry of Defence pardoned some 300 soldiers who had been executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, having concluded that many were probably just crippled by PTSD.”
- This is an ethical claim because soldiers who were executed for cowardice were given pardons due to the “probability” of them having PTSD.
- This claim doesn’t outright say they had PTSD which is why they were given pardons; they were given pardons due to the chance that they may have had PTSD which caused them to desert and be cowardly.
- It is ethical because with no facts other than the sympathetic claim that they may have had PTSD led the jurors to pardon them
6. ““45 percent” of kids in one small study “reported significant PTSD signs”; “83 percent reported elevated hostility scores.””
- This is a factual claim as it provides evidence that children can pick up symptoms of PTSD due to a close family member initially having it.
- By giving evidence that 45 percent of kids show PTSD symptoms as well as even more being more hostile, as is a PTSD symptom, the facts can be deduced that it is a real fact.
Counterintuitive 