A. “Some hypotheses for why PTSD only tortures some trauma victims blame it on unhappily coded proteins, or a misbehaving amygdala. Family history, or maybe previous trauma.”
- This is a causal claim, as well as a proposal claim. It is causal because it claims a cause and effect, being that the causes are the miscoded proteins and brain functions, family history, and other traumas, and the effects being symptoms of PTSD.
- This is also a proposal claim because these causes are hypotheses, not exactly proven facts
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 casual claim is it shows the cause and effect of how a nervous system that doesn’t function right causes stress in an individual
C. “it comes in a couple of varieties, various complexities, has causes ranging from one lightning-fast event to drawn-out terrors or patterns of abuse—in soldiers”
- This is a categorical claim, as it shows the different symptoms of PTSD, or what they could be if one does have PTSD.
D. “the incidence of PTSD goes up with the number of tours and amount of combat experienced.”
- This is a casual claim, as the author states that PTSD cases increase with the amount of combat one is involved in increases
E. “You can’t see Caleb’s other wound, either. It’s called traumatic brain injury, or TBI, from multiple concussions.”
- There is a definition claim here, as TBI is defined. This can also be a casual claim as concussions affect the TBIs
F. “When it was over, they gave him an IV and some Motrin, and within hours, he was back on patrol. The Army has rules about that sort of thing now. Now if you’re knocked unconscious, or have double vision, or exhibit other signs of a brain injury, you have to rest for a certain period of time, but that rule didn’t go into effect in theater until 2010, after Caleb was already out of the service.”
- This is an ethical claim as there wasn’t a rule during Caleb’s time of combat that stated anyone who was injured had to sit out. This seems absurd to me because even though the rule is implemented now, why wasn’t it there earlier? It seems like common sense that if one was injured they wouldn’t go and continue to fight.
G. “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”
- This is a ethical claim. Why wouldn’t the doctors listen to Brannan and take Caleb’s case more seriously? Later the author explains how a nurse responded to her saying there are worse injuries to be taken accounted for, but shouldn’t all injures, no matter how big or small, being treated for? This is the doctors fault for not properly treating Caleb.
H. “Unlike PTSD, secondary traumatic stress doesn’t have its own entry in the DSM, though the manual does take note of it, as do many peer-reviewed studies and the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
This is a factual claim, as secondary PTSD is not in the DSM, which is the main manual for all disorders.
I. ““Trauma is really not something that happens to an individual,” says Robert Motta, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at Hofstra University who wrote a few of the many medical-journal articles about secondary trauma in Vietnam vets’ families. “Trauma is a contagious disease; it affects everyone that has close contact with a traumatized person” in some form or another, to varying degrees and for different lengths of time.”
This is a recommendation claim. Robert Motta is explaining a different view on trauma, saying it is a contagious disease rather than something happening to the person.
It can also be factual claim because Motta states that there can be different ways trauma can be affected to other members of the family.
J. “The symptoms were similar to what those researchers had seen before, in perhaps the most analyzed and important population in the field of secondary traumatization: the children of Holocaust survivors.”
This is an analogy claim because the author is claiming that the symptoms of children who experience secondary trauma is similar to symptoms of children of Holocaust survivors.