Now, he’s rounder, heavier, bearded, and long-haired, obviously tough even if he weren’t prone to wearing a COMBAT INFANTRYMAN cap, 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 paragraph as a whole closely resembles a categorical claim, insisting that almost everything about her husband appears normal, but he falls under the category of “Disabled Veteran.” The mentioning of someone from “Nam” or the legless person are presented in order to show that though her husband appears different he is in just as bad, if not worse, a state as others, categorizing him as a different/abstract view of “disabled veteran.”

Not the old ‘Nam guy with a limp, or maybe the young legless Iraq survivor, that you’d expect.

This line is an analogy claim. Although I stated that it is used to categorize her husband it also makes the claim that he is different but also equal to the “Nam guy” and “legless Iraq survivor” because of that title “Disabled Veteran.”

but still not the guy you picture when you see his “Disabled Veteran” license plates.

This is an evaluative claim as the author decides to present the image of what a “Disabled Veteran” would look like in the eyes of a normal person that doesn’t deal with people that have that title. But this may also be a causal claim because the author wouldn’t know who the viewers of her article may be and what they expect of a “Disabled Veteran,” but figures that the average person wouldn’t think of mental issues for a veteran that’s been in combat.