…diagnosing PTSD is a tricky thing.
This is an evaluative claim because it is is suggesting that due to the uncertainties of the signs of PTSD, it is hard for some doctors to diagnose PTSD but it doesn’t include “all doctors” have trouble doing this. This is a judgement whether or not PTSD is hard to diagnose or not.
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, it comes in a couple of varieties, various complexities, has causes ranging from one lightning-fast event to drawn-out terrors or patterns of abuses.
This is a casual claim because it is talking about the common cause and effects of having PTSD.
This is an analogy claim because they talk about how the number of tours and the amount of combat experience the soldier has is directly related to the increase of the incidence of PTSD. There is similarity and relation between how much the soldier goes through and the incidence of PTSD.
Doctors have to go on hunches and symptomology rather than definitive evidence.
This is a factual claim because the writer is saying the doctors have to go with their gut based on the patients symptoms because there are no measurable objective biological characteristics to identify PTSD.
And the fact that the science hasn’t fully caught up with the suffering
This is an evaluative claim because the author is judging how we still do not have a lot of information about PTSD and the symptoms of people who have it.
This is also an ethical or moral claim because he says that people with PTSD suffer so much that scientist and doctors should have more information on it to help them.
Caleb knows that a person whose problem is essentially that he can’t adapt to peacetime Alabama sounds, to many, like a pussy.
This is an evaluative claim because it is making a judgement on how people perceive Caleb with PTSD. He gives sympathy to Caleb more than he thinks society gives him.