“Different studies of the children of American World War II, Korea, and Vietnam vets with PTSD have turned up different results: “45 percent” of kids in one small study “reported significant PTSD signs”; “83 percent reported elevated hostility scores.” Other studies have found a “higher rate of psychiatric treatment”; “more dysfunctional social and emotional behavior”; “difficulties in establishing and maintaining friendships.” 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.”
“Different studies of the children of American World War II, Korea, and Vietnam vets with PTSD have turned up different results”
This is a factual claim. Studies have been done of certain groups of children; that’s a fact. The studies have turned out results; that’s a fact. The results were different between one study to another; that’s a fact. The author is not making any claims about the content of the studies, simply that they happened and that the results weren’t all the same, which is indisputable and can easily be proven.
“45 percent” of kids in one small study”
This is a quantitative/comparative claim. It is quantitative because it gives the quantity of “‘45 percent’ of kids” and also quantifies the study by calling it “small.” It is comparative because 45% of the children in that study are being compared to the remaining 55% in terms of PTSD symptoms. The study itself is also being compared to other studies because it can only be considered small when comparing it to other studies that are less small.
“reported significant PTSD signs”
This is an evaluative claim as well as a factual claim. To make this claim, one would have to evaluate what “significant PTSD signs” are. That definition could vary from study to study. Someone had to make a judgement on what behaviors count as “significant” PTSD symptoms. However, it is factual because it can’t be argued that 45% of the children reported it, regardless of what counts as a significant symptom.
Similarly to the other percentage, this is a quantitative/comparative claim. It gives the quantity of 83% of the children in the study and is comparing the 83% of children to the remaining 17%.
“reported elevated hostility scores.”
This is both a numerical evaluative claim and a factual claim. It is numerically evaluative because in order to make this claim, someone had to evaluate what a normal hostility level looks like and then quantify what increased hostility looked like. It is also factual because regardless of what the definition of “elevated hostility” is, if 83% of the children reported elevated hostility, then that’s how many children reported it, and that can’t be disputed.
“Other studies have found”
This is a comparative claim. It is comparing the study that was just referenced to other studies. It is also a factual claim because even if the actual results of a study can be disputed, it cannot be disputed that a certain study claimed “these are our results.”
These claims are numerical evaluatives and evaluatives. “Higher rate of psychiatric treatment” is a numerical evaluative because claiming a “higher rate” is a quantity of the amount of psychiatric treatment and for a “higher rate” to exist, someone had to evaluate what a normal rate of psychiatric treatment was, and while that evaluation could be backed up by research, I don’t think it could be objective enough to be fact. The second two claims are both evaluations. “Dysfunctional social and emotional behavior” and “difficulties in establishing and maintaining friendships” are both subjective things at the end of the day, although research could back up a claim about abnormalities in either area. These claims are evaluating the type of behavior seen in veterans’ children and are labelling it as “dysfunctional.” Those two claims could also be considered categorical because the types of behavior are put into a category of “dysfunctional.”
“The symptoms were similar to what those researchers had seen before”
This is a comparative claim. The results of this study are being compared to the results from earlier studies. It is also factual. Let’s say one study reports that the children were more aggressive and another study also reports that the children were more aggressive. It can’t be argued that both studies reported similar results, even if the claim of what “more aggressive” looks like is a bit subjective.
“perhaps the most analyzed and important population in the field of secondary traumatization: the children of Holocaust survivors.”
This is an evaluative and comparative claim. One cannot factually say that a certain group is the most analyzed or most important. This claim is evaluating the importance of children of Holocaust survivors and deciding that they’re the most important group to study. Researchers could back this claim up with evidence, but it’s too subjective to be factual. It’s comparative because claiming that Holocaust survivors’ children are the most important group to study inherently compares them with the children of every other generation of war survivors and decides that those groups are less important.