Claims – sunshine2818

Posted on September 23, 2020 by sunshine2818

So she doesn’t. If she’s not saving lives on the phone or blogging, she’s offering support via Facebook, where thousands of Family of a Vet users and nearly 500 FOV volunteers congregate and commiserate. “I am now more hypervigilant than my husband,” volunteer Kateri Peterson posts to her Facebook page, and people comment things like “I know that even if my husband is having a decent day I am still in that alert mode and he is asking me to please relax and for the life of me, as hard as I try, I just can’t, I am still on the lookout. I know people probably think I am nuts.” On a private Facebook group, Kateri tells the story of how her family was at Olive Garden when she started sobbing into her Zuppa Toscana. There was no visible reason for it. Just the general overwhelmingness of her distress, of that awful overstimulating hypervigilance, the sort of thing you develop sometimes when you live with someone who looks out the living room window for danger literally hundreds of times a day, or who goes from room to room, room to room, over and over to make sure everyone in each one is still alive. Kateri’s eight-year-old son now also counts the exits in new spaces he enters, points them out to his loved ones, keeps a mental map of them at the ready, until war or fire fails to break out, and everyone is safely back home. It’s to help kids like that that Brannan and her volunteers put together an informational packet on secondary trauma for parents to give to teachers, explaining their battle-worthy idiosyncrasies and sensory-processing sensitivities. They’re common enough problems that the Department of Health and Human Services got in touch with Brannan about distributing the packet more widely.

Categorical claim – The author uses many examples to describing the actions that would otherwise be attributed to PTSD “Just the general overwhelmingness of her distress, of that awful overstimulating hypervigilance”

Quantitative, numerical, or comparative claim – The author states “They’re common enough problems that the Department of Health and Human Services got in touch with Brannan about distributing the packet more widely.”. This is implying that it is because the PTSD symptoms have become prevalent. 

Analogy claim – the author is making a comparison of the kids new behavior to the parent that has PTSD. “Kateri’s eight-year-old son now also counts the exits in new spaces he enters, points them out to his loved ones, keeps a mental map of them at the ready, until war or fire fails to break out, and everyone is safely back home

Categorical claim – again the author is naming several example or adjectives to describe PTSD symptoms. “explaining their battle-worthy idiosyncrasies and sensory-processing sensitivities”.

Posted in Authors FA20, Claims | Leave a comment

Claims- Thecommoncase

Posted on September 23, 2020 by thecommoncase

It’s kind of hard to understand Caleb’s injuries. Even doctors can’t say for sure exactly why he has flashbacks, why he could be standing in a bookstore when all of a sudden he’s sure he’s in Ramadi, the pictures in his brain disorienting him among the stacks, which could turn from stacks to rows of rooftops that need to be scanned for snipers. Sometimes he starts yelling, and often he doesn’t remember anything about it later. They don’t know exactly why it comes to him in dreams, and why especially that time he picked up the pieces of Baghdad bombing victims and that lady who appeared to have thrown herself on top of her child to save him only to find the child dead underneath torments him when he’s sleeping, and sometimes awake. They don’t know why some other guys in his unit who did and saw the same stuff that Caleb did and saw are fine but Caleb is so sensitive to light, why he can’t just watch the news like a regular person without feeling as if he might catch fire. 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.

“It’s kind of hard to understand Caleb’s injuries. Even doctors can’t say for sure exactly why he has flashbacks…

-This would be an example of an evaluative claim. By stating the doctors are unsure of the reason Caleb has flashbacks, the author is describing how complicated his condition is and that it can be difficult for even professionals to understand.

…He could be standing in a bookstore when all of a sudden he’s sure he’s in Ramadi, the pictures in his brain disorienting him among the stacks, which could turn from stacks to rows of rooftops that need to be scanned for snipers. Sometimes he starts yelling, and often he doesn’t remember anything about it later. They don’t know exactly why it comes to him in dreams, and why especially that time he picked up the pieces of Baghdad bombing victims and that lady who appeared to have thrown herself on top of her child to save him only to find the child dead underneath torments him when he’s sleeping, and sometimes awake.”

-This passage would be both an evaluative claim and a categorical claim. It’s an evaluative claim since this describes a common situation for Caleb that doctors and other experts can observe and draw conclusions from. Since every veteran diagnosed with PTSD has different symptoms, this is also a categorical claim because it is giving an example of Caleb’s symptoms of PTSD.

“They don’t know why some other guys in his unit who did and saw the same stuff that Caleb did and saw are fine but Caleb is so sensitive to light, why he can’t just watch the news like a regular person without feeling as if he might catch fire.”

-These few sentences have comparative claim and categorical claim as it is comparing Caleb’s symptoms with others who experienced the same traumatic events as him but do not have the same symptoms. It is also considered a categorical claim since it’s stating Caleb’s triggers.

“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 would be considered a casual claim since it’s only stating a hypothesis and giving possible explanations as to why some trauma victims have PTSD and others don’t.

Posted in Claims, thecommoncase | Leave a comment

claims- wafflesrgud

Posted on September 23, 2020 by wafflesrgud22

PTSD stands for psychological traumatic stress disorder.This common disorder is known to be common in post war veterans because of all the horrible war experiences those individuals have to live through. Just as the article mentioned Caleb was a survivor of the Afganistán and Iraq war. PTSD can in a sense even be contagious. It can go from one family member to another after the survivor returns. There is a study that claims 45% of post war veterans kids have displayed significant signs of PTSD—even if they themselves have not gone. A lot of times the loved ones of people who have PTSD are overlooked. Studies have shown from the children and the wife, like Brannan for example, suffer from PTSD and are often neglected in getting the support and love they need. If there is more support for the families of the survivors, then the spread of the stress disorder will for certain lessen.

Posted in Claims, wafflesrgud | Leave a comment

Claims – mhmokaysure

Posted on September 23, 2020 by kowiklinski

I asked the lead scientist, Marinus van IJzendoorn of Leiden University, what might account for other studies’ finding of secondary trauma in vets’ spouses or kids. He said he’s never analyzed those studies, and wonders if the results would hold up to a meta-analysis. But: “Suppose that there is a second-generation effect in veterans, there are a few differences that are quite significant” from children of Holocaust survivors that “might account for difference in coping mechanisms and resources.” Holocaust survivors “had more resources and networks, wider family members and community to support them to adapt to their new circumstances after a war.” They were not, in other words, expected to man up and get over it.

“other studies’ finding” – Comparative claim, as it compares the findings of other studies.

“lead scientist” – Categorical claim, as the scientist is a leader, falls into the category of leading the study.

“of Leiden University” – Factual Claim, as that is where the scientist conducts his research

“Spouses or kids” – Categorical claim, as the trauma can apply to vets’ spouses or kids, making up two different possibilities.

“He said he’s never analyzed those studies” – Factual Claim, the professor has never conducted this research.

“wonders if the results” – Evaluative Claim, as it brings the question of will the results hold up.

“Suppose that there is a second-generation effect in veterans, there are a few differences that are quite significant” from children of Holocaust survivors that “might account for difference in coping mechanisms and resources.”” – Comparative Claim, as it compares the effects on two completely different groups.

Causal Claim, as it gives a reason to why there may be a difference in coping mechanisms and resources.

“Suppose that there is a second-generation effect in veterans” – Evaluative claim, as it assumes there is a second-generation effect.

Causal claim, as it associates trauma with second-generation effects in veterans.

“They were not, in other words, expected to man up and get over it.” – Evaluative claim, as it assumes what they were expected to do.

Posted in Claims, mhmokaysure | Leave a comment

Claims – akidfromakron

Posted on September 23, 2020 by 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

Posted on September 23, 2020 by 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 612119d, Claims | Leave a comment

Claims- cardinal

Posted on September 23, 2020 by cardinal7218

“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—Aquarela

Posted on September 23, 2020 by aquarela

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 Aquarela, Claims | Leave a comment

Claims- gabythefujoshi

Posted on September 23, 2020 by gabythefujoshi18

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, gabythefujoshi | Leave a comment

Claims – gooferious

Posted on September 23, 2020 by 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