Claim one: diagnosing PTSD is a tricky thing. 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 abuse

• The beginning where it states that “diagnosing PTSD is a tricky thing” is an evaluative claim as it is making an evaluation of the difficulty of diagnosing PTSD.  The rest of the claim is a factual claim, albeit one which does not use highly objective language.

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

• This is a factual claim.  It makes the claim that incidents of PTSD go up with combat experiences, and it states it as a fact.  I initially thought that it could be a causal claim, however, I decided otherwise because the claim only brings up a correlation, however, it does not directly state causation, though it strongly implies it.

Claim three: As with most psychiatric diagnoses, there are no measurable objective biological characteristics to identify it. Doctors have to go on hunches and symptomology rather than definitive evidence. 

• The first part of this claim is factual. The second part which states that “Doctors have to go on hunches and symptomology rather than definitive evidence.” is evaluative because it makes an evaluation about how doctors diagnose PTSD.

Claim four: the fact that the science hasn’t fully caught up with the suffering, that Caleb can’t point to something provably, biologically ruining his life, just makes him feel worse. It’s invalidating

• This is a causal claim.  The claim is that Caleb’s suffering is exacerbated because of the fact that PTSD is not well understood, which leads to him feeling like his issues aren’t valid issues.

Claim five: Unlike PTSD, secondary traumatic stress doesn’t have its own entry in the DSM, though the manual does take note of it, as do many peer-reviewed studies and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

• This claim is a comparative claim.  It compares a difference between secondary traumatic stress and PTSD.  The difference is that one is not present in the DSM while the other one is.

Claim six: Symptoms start at depression and alienation, including the “compassion fatigue” suffered by social workers and trauma counselors.

• This is categorical.  It lists some symptoms of secondary traumatic stress.

Claim seven: some spouses and loved ones suffer symptoms that are, as one medical journal puts it, “almost identical to PTSD except that indirect exposure to the traumatic event through close contact with the primary victim of trauma” is the catalyst. Basically your spouse’s behavior becomes the “T” in your own PTSD. If sympathy for Caleb is a little lacking, you can imagine what little understanding exists for Brannan.

• The beginning of this claim is attributive because it uses the words of a medical journal to support its position.  The claim is also comparative and causal.  It is causal because it claims that the behavior of the spouse with PTSD becomes the “T” for the other partner.  It is comparative because it compares the level of sympathy offered to the spouse with direct exposure to traumatic events, to the spouse with indirect exposure, using this comparison to make a point of how little sympathy the spouse with indirect exposure receives.