I had Section 19:
“ A 2000 VA budget crunch led to her clinic’s contract being terminated—and her husband’s disability pay ended when he killed himself in 2001.”
This is a casual claim. This is showing the cause of Dannas budget problem led to her contract being taken away from the clinic and the disability pay that was being received from her husband was also cut out because he had killed himself. So unfortunately if he was no longer living there was no disability pay given. So this is a cause and effect example for casual claims.
“Danna’s husband was checking into inpatient psych treatments for almost three weeks at a time, she says, only to come back to his now-crazy wife and “within three seconds” be re-exposed to someone in the emotional state that he was in when he left.”
This is a ethical and moral claim. It is showing that because of Dannas husband checking into these Psych treatments, he had then committed suicide as claimed in the article. She was left without his presence and she stated that all she is now basically is the crazy wife. So after his death she was exposed to that same emotional state he was in before he passed, and now currently she is in that state because of his death. So now because of her depression she is considered one of those “ Crazy wives” who’s husband died and had nothing to do since his death because she is trying to deal with depression because of this.
“The VA already is footing some $600 million worth of PTSD treatment for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan** in 2013, via hundreds of medical centers and smaller outpatient clinics, plus 232 vet centers that offer general readjustment services.”
This is a factual claim. It is showing us that $600 million dollars worth of PTSD treatment is being created for the veterans who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also tells us that there are clinics around the United States or help out these veterans with PTSD. This is factual because it provides evidence in numbers from resources to help us understand the claims being made.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
“Danna’s husband was checking into inpatient psych treatments for almost three weeks at a time, she says, only to come back to his now-crazy wife and “within three seconds” be re-exposed to someone in the emotional state that he was in when he left.”
I like your blend of analysis here, CoffeeLover. You do a nice job of reading the psychological (and ethical) implications of the claims. They’re not obvious, so that took some doing.
That said, we read the claims very differently: she blames the VA for her husband’s suicide BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T TREAT HER.
Here’s how I understand it: he was checking into inpatient psych treatments for almost three weeks at a time and supposedly coming home in good shape, having been stabilized, but he came back to his now-crazy wife who had developed mental illness herself (contagious PTSD, we’re led to believe) so that “within three seconds” he was re-exposed to crazy and relapsed.
The unspoken CAUSAL CLAIM here is that if SHE had been treated ALONG WITH HIM, they both could have stabilized and not fed each other’s crazy.
How does that sound?
Provisionally graded at Canvas. You don’t have to agree with me about the section above, and you’ve made a good start at the assignment, but you can do better, and more, if you put your mind to it. Ask for a Regrade if you do.
LikeLike