Claims – akidfromakron

Today she’s fielding phone calls from a woman whose veteran son was committed to a non-VA psychiatric facility, but he doesn’t want to be at the facility because he, a severe-PTSD sufferer, was already paranoid before one of the other resident loons threatened to kill him, and anyway he fought for his fucking country and they promised they wouldn’t abandon him and he swears to God he will have to kill himself if the VA doesn’t put him in with the other soldiers. Another veteran’s wife calls from the parking lot of a diner to which she fled when her husband looked like he was going to boil over in rage. Another woman’s husband had a service dog die in the night, and the death smell in the morning triggered an episode she worries will end in him hurting himself or someone else if she doesn’t get him into a VA hospital, and the closest major clinic is four hours away and she is eight and a half months pregnant and got three hours of sleep, and the clinic’s website says its case manager position for veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan is currently unstaffed, anyway.

Today she’s fielding phone calls

This is an factual claim, as it is describing what the worker is doing in their day. It talks about what the worker is doing on that specific day, but never mentions if it is out of the ordinary from what they normally do, or if this is a daily occurrence for them.

he doesn’t want to be at the facility because he, a severe-PTSD sufferer, was already paranoid before one of the other resident loons threatened to kill him, and anyway he fought for his fucking country and they promised they wouldn’t abandon him and he swears to God he will have to kill himself if the VA doesn’t put him in with the other soldiers

This is an comparative claim because it is describing a situation in which a patient with PTSD claims that he will take certain actions if others are not. This situation is comparing to what might happen if the actions are taken or not.

Another woman’s husband had a service dog die in the night, and the death smell in the morning triggered an episode she worries will end in him hurting himself or someone else if she doesn’t get him into a VA hospital

This is a causal claim, since the service dog’s death is being used as a cause for triggering an episode to the veteran. It is also a prediction by the wife as to what will happen to the husband as a result of this.

the closest major clinic is four hours away and she is eight and a half months pregnant and got three hours of sleep”

This is a factual claim, as they are indisputable figures and they exist beyond doubt. It could be mistaken as a quantitative claim, but there is no comparison to other clinic distances, or anything relating to other people. In this claim, the author is describing the hardships a woman has to go through dealing with her husband’s PTSD.

the clinic’s website says its case manager position for veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan is currently unstaffed, anyway

This is a causal claim because it somewhat touches on cause and effect. The veteran’s wife wanted to bring her husband into a VA hospital, but is not having success, noting that the VA office is understaffed anyway. This claim offers insight as to why the wife is having troubles with getting her husband the help that she wants him to get, which is the VA’s office being understaffed.

Posted in akidfromakron, Claims | Leave a comment

Claims- 612119D

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.” 

The author uses numerical claims by giving us a study and coming up with a percentage of children that were affected by PTSD from a few wars in US history.

Other studies have found a “higher rate of psychiatric treatment”; “more dysfunctional social and emotional behavior”; “difficulties in establishing and maintaining friendships.” 

 In this section the author uses Analogy Claim. He uses PTSD and connecting it to them having the ability not to be able to maintain friendship

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 survivor

There was a Factual Claim in this section when they compared Iraq war vets children to holocaust kids and both parents  had severe trama and in there case was researched extremely thorough

Posted in Claims | Leave a comment

Claims- cardinal

“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.

“83 percent”

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.”

“higher rate of psychiatric treatment”; “more dysfunctional social and emotional behavior”; “difficulties in establishing and maintaining friendships.”

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.

Posted in cardinal, Claims | Leave a comment

Claims-Mesrurerowan

We await the results of the 20-year, 10,000-family-strong study of impacts on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans’ kin, the largest of its kind ever conducted, that just got under way.

Quantitative claim. It says about awaiting the results of the 20-year, which can be proven; and 10,000 families.

Meanwhile, René Robi­chaux, social-work programs manager for US Army Medical Command, concedes that “in a family system, every member of that system is going to be impacted, most often in a negative way, by mental-health issues.” 

Causal claim. The sentence includes the possible consequences of the system.

That was the impetus for the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, which since 2005 has added 70 therapists to military installations around the country.

Factual claim. 70 therapists were added to military installations, it can be proven.

Mostly what the program provides is couples’ counseling.

Definition claim, because it defines what the program provides.

Children are “usually not” treated, but when necessary referred to child psychiatrists—of which the Army has 31. 

Meanwhile, the Child, Adolescent and Family Behavioral Health Office has trained hundreds of counselors in schools with Army children in and around bases to try to identify and treat coping and behavioral problems early on. “We’re better than we were,” Robi­chaux says. “But we still have a ways to go.”

Evaluative claim. Robichaux’s point of view is arguable.

Comparative claim. ‘’We are better that we were’’ is a comparison.

Posted in Claims, mesrurerowan | Leave a comment

Claims- gabythefujoshi

By this point, you might be wondering, and possibly feeling guilty about wondering, why Brannan doesn’t just get divorced. And she would tell you openly that she’s thought about it. “Everyone has thought about it,” she says. And a lot of people do it. In the wake of Vietnam, 38 percent of marriages failed within the first six months of a veteran’s return stateside; the divorce rate was twice as high for vets with PTSD as for those without. Vietnam vets with severe PTSD are 69 percent more likely to have their marriages fail than other vets. Army records also show that 65 percent of active-duty suicides, which now outpace combat deaths, are precipitated by broken relationships. And veterans, well, one of them dies by suicide every 80 minutes. But even ignoring that though vets make up 7 percent of the United States, they account for 20 percent of its suicides—or that children and teenagers of a parent who’s committed suicide are three times more likely to kill themselves, too—or a whole bunch of equally grim statistics, Brannan’s got her reasons for sticking it out with Caleb.

“By this point, you might be wondering, and possibly feeling guilty about wondering, why Brannan doesn’t just get a divorced.”

-This is an evaluative claim because the writer is not only questioning what is being said, but also asserting how the audience would react to the claim. It can be argued and brought up for further discussion about how Brannan should react and/or how a third party would expect them to react.

“In the wake of Vietnam, 38 percent of marriages failed within the first six months of a veteran’s return stateside; the divorce rate was twice as high for vets with PTSD as for those without.” Quantitative Claim

-While at first glance it seems like a factual claim, it is more of a quantitative claim because to some extent, it can reliable or not. It’s giving a certain percentage of failed marriages in a given time and category of people. It also makes a comparison of the divorce rates for vets and those without, furthering emphasizing their claim of high divorce rates with veterans. The data is construed to fit the writer’s argument, so it is more quantitative, comparative than factual.

“Vietnam vets with severe PTSD are 69 percent more likely to have their marriages fail than other vets.”

“But even ignoring that though vets make up 7 percent of the United States, they account for 20 percent of its suicides—or that children and teenagers of a parent who’s committed suicide are three times more likely to kill themselves, too—or a whole bunch of equally grim statistics, Brannan’s got her reasons for sticking it out with Caleb.”

-Both these claims are similar to the previous one, it’s a comparative claim with quantitative claims as well to back up the argument. The key phrases used in the sentence are ‘most likely’ and ‘than’ this phrase is what makes this claim comparative and not factual.

“And veterans, well, one of them dies by suicide every 80 minutes.

-This claim uses quantitative but it can also be interpreted as causal because it is asserting the prediction or effect PTSD has on veterans. The “every 80 minutes” makes it more impactful to the grave effects of PTSD.

Overall, this whole paragraph uses mostly quantitative and comparative claims to its argument of many of the unfortunate events that veterans go through. There were numerical facts used but diverted to suit the argument made. The claims made were most likely for shock value, especially when one sees the numbers. It seems the writer wants the audience to feel sympathy for the veterans.

Posted in Claims, Feedback Please, gabythefujoshi | Leave a comment

Claims – gooferious

When I asked the VA if the organization would treat kids for secondary trauma, its spokesperson stressed that it has made great strides in family services in recent years, rolling out its own program for couples’ counseling and parenting training.

This statement is a factual claim because, the author states that when they asked about services for children the spokesperson confirmed that not only were there services for children but for the adults too.

“Our goal is to make the parents the strongest parents they can be,” says Susan McCutcheon, national director for Family Services, Women’s Mental Health, and Military Sexual Trauma at the VA…

After reading I have concluded that this quote is a moral claim. I say this with the reason that McCutcheon assures that they are trying to help these parents become more emotionally fit to handle PTSD situations.

…According to Shirley Glynn, a VA clinical research psychologist who was also on the call, “for the vast majority of people with the secondary traumatization model, the most important way to help the family deal with things is to ensure that the veteran gets effective treatment.”

This next portion is considered to be a proposal claim because Dr. Glynn was stating a method of treatment for veterans who suffer from PTSD. She was trying to convince/propose a solution.

In cases where children themselves need treatment, these VA officials recommended that parents find psychologists themselves, though they note “this is a good time [for the VA] to make partners with the community so we can make good referrals.” Or basically: “You’re on your own,” says Brannan.

This final quote can be called two of the nine claims. To start off with, this quote is a casual claim because it includes a cause and effect situation. The kids need treatment (cause) and because of that the VA wants to make partners with local community services. (effect)

The other claim that this could be called is again another moral claim. I identify this as a moral claim because, basically what the VA was trying to do was not treat the children themselves but worded it in a way that did not sound harsh. Brannan goes on to say exactly what the VA meant to say but in a less complicated sentence.

Posted in Claims, gooferious | Leave a comment

Claims – rowanstudent

“The amount of progress in Caleb’s six years of therapy has been frustrating for everyone. But ultimately, says Alain Brunet, vice president of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and director of the Traumatic Stress Laboratory at McGill University in Canada, “we have reason to be reasonably optimistic. Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD.”

These couple sentences are making an evaluative claim. “The amount of progress in Caleb’s six years of therapy has been frustrating for everyone.” Is involving judgement of the characteristics of a situation. The judgment of his progress and how it has effected others, and the situation being therapy. The rest of the quotation is where the evaluations are arguable and can be supported by expertise and authority, which in this scene would be Alain Brunet, the Vice President of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and Director of the Traumatic Stress Laboratory.

The very last sentence, “Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD,”is a casual claim because it has assertions of cause and effect.

“The VA tends to favor cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy—whereby traumatic events are hashed out and rehashed until they become, theoretically, less consuming.”

The first sentence of this next section is making a definition claim, giving a brief definition and explanation of cognitive- behavioral therapy and exposure therapy.

“Some state VA offices also offer group therapy. For severe cases, the agency offers inpatient programs, one of which Caleb resided in for three months in 2010. The VA also endorses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy(EMDR), which is based on the theory that memories of traumatic events are, in effect, improperly stored, and tries to refile them by discussing those memories while providing visual or auditory stimulus.”

This area is making a definition claim, stating what EMDR therapy is.

“There’s a fairly strong consensus around CBT and EMDR,” Brunet says. While veterans are waiting for those to work, they’re often prescribed complicated antidepressant-based pharmacological cocktails.”

I believe these statements to be an ethical claim, it is showing fault in some forms of treatment which is leading veterans to be prescribed complicating antidepressant based cocktails possibly worsening their situation.

Posted in 123 Uncheck this Box, Claims, Feedback Please | Leave a comment

Claims – shadowswife

Her schoolmate said something mean. Maybe. Katie doesn’t sound sure, or like she remembers exactly. One thing she’s positive of: “She just made me…so. MAD.”

  • This is an example of a casual claim because of how it is an assertion of a cause and effect. The cause: Kate’s schoolmate said mean to her. The effect: Katie grew angered as a result.
  • This is an example of an evaluative claim because of how Brannan is judging Katie’s tone as vague when she makes her claim.

Brannan asks Katie to name some of the alternatives. “Walk away, get the teacher, yes ma’am, no ma’am,” Katie dutifully responds to the prompts.

  • This is an example of a recommendation and/or claim because of how Brannan advises Katie to walk away from the situation and tell the teacher.

She looks disappointed in herself. Her eyebrows are heavily creased when she shakes her head and says quietly, “I was so mad.”

  • This is an example of an analogy claim because of how Brannan is making this claim based off on how Katie looks and analyzing her facial expressions and body language.
  • This is also an example of an evaluative claim because of how Brannan is evaluating Katie’s body language.

Posted in Claims, shadowswife | Leave a comment

Claims-rowanstudent24

Whatever is happening to Caleb, it’s as old as war itself.

-This is an analogy claim because it’s comparing what’s happening to Caleb to war

The ancient historian Herodotus told of Greeks being honorably dismissed for being “out of heart” and “unwilling to encounter danger.” Civil War doctors, who couldn’t think of any other thing that might be unpleasant about fighting the Civil War but homesickness, diagnosed thousands with “nostalgia.” Later, it was deemed “irritable heart.” In World War I it was called “shell shock.” In World War II, “battle fatigue.” 

– This is a factual claim because this all actually happened throughout history and it can be proven through evidence.

It wasn’t an official diagnosis until 1980, when Post Traumatic Stress Disorder made its debut in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, uniting a flood of Vietnam vets suffering persistent psych issues with traumatized civilians—previously assigned labels like “accident neurosis” and “post-rape syndrome”—onto the same page of the DSM-III.

-These sentences are a factual claim and a quantitative claim. This is a factual claim because it talks about the official diagnosis in 1980 and can be proven through evidence. This is a quantitative claim because it is stating an amount of war veterans that suffer from Psych issues.

Posted in Claims, rowanstudent24 | Leave a comment

Claims- clementine102

…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.

in soldiers, the incidence of PTSD goes up with the number of tours and amount of combat experienced.

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.

Posted in Claims, clementine | Leave a comment