I had section 3!

It’s kind of hard to understand Caleb’s injuries.

• from the beginning the first claim stated is illustrative to capture the reader’s attention, the writer speaks on how there are complications to understanding Caleb’s injuries. It starts making the reader feel some sort of emotion like sympathy, confusion, or possible worriness for Caleb.

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.

• Next the attributive claim is shown in the text. In this the author takes the claim they made and passes it on to the doctor explaining how they themselves do not understand Calebs condition. Giving a specific example to back up the claim of Calebs condition would be considered Categorical. This is because of the explanation given after the attributive claim to explain why the doctors do not really have an understanding and why it is hard to understand.

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

• This would be another example of categorical claim, as the author is explaining the different symptoms that Caleb suffers from so severely that it is to be understood. From the way he lives to dreams he has of the experience he went through. There is also comparative claiming done in this section because Caleb is compared to the other veterans that came back and saw the same things Caleb did, but did not suffer the way he did with the sensitivity to light or watching the news.

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 factual claim. The hypotheses is given with the statement of the possibility of Caleb suffering from PTSD because of his traumatic background still taunting him in the present. As well as adding science to it about proteins, amygdala and/or family history. This would also be considered a casual claim, as the claim being given from trauma is something that asserts cause and effect which is what is being done here with additional information.

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

• In this paragraph it is spoken on how Calebs symptoms is something that has been around for as long as war has been where there were multiple names for it throughout the years until there was one final diagnosis. The claim here would be proposal because the author is writing with the purpose of backing up the information given in the paragraph previously. This could also be a credible claim because there is mention of the official diagnosis of PTSD being written down in the psychiatry Diagnostic and Statisitical Manual of Mental Disorders.

But whatever people have called it, they haven’t been likely to grasp or respect it. In 1943, when Lt. General George S. Patton met an American soldier at an Italian hospital recovering from “nerves,” Patton slapped him and called him a coward. In 2006, the British Ministry of Defence pardoned some 300 soldiers who had been executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, having concluded that many were probably just crippled by PTSD.

• Evaluative claim is shown in this paragraph with the example of General George and how he would deal with PTSD patients showing no sympathy at all, showing that not everyone took the diagnosis seriously. I would also add illistrative claim with this because after the author told what General George would do to those suffering from PTSD it speaks on how in 2006 around 300 soldiers were executed for that making people feel some sort of sympathy for those who suffered from PTSD at the time.