PTSD Claims-ravensfan

Posted on February 18, 2024 by ravensfan8

I was assigned section 1

Brannan Vines has never been to war. But she’s got a warrior’s skills: hyperawareness, hypervigilance, adrenalinesharp quick-scanning for danger, for triggers. Super stimuli-sensitive. Skills on the battlefield, crazy-person behavior in a drug store, where she was recently standing behind a sweet old lady counting out change when she suddenly became so furious her ears literally started ringing. Being too cognizant of every sound—every coin dropping an echo—she explodes inwardly, fury flash-incinerating any normal tolerance for a fellow patron with a couple of dollars in quarters and dimes. Her nose starts running she’s so pissed, and there she is standing in a CVS, snotty and deaf with rage, like some kind of maniac, because a tiny elderly woman needs an extra minute to pay for her dish soap or whatever.

In this beginning paragraph of the first section there are a couple different claims that could be made. The first claim is a categorical claim. This is because it describes some of the side effects that Brannan is dealing with like hyperawareness and hypervigilance. Causal claim is also presented in this paragraph. The author describes Brannan getting very angry just because an old lady is taking an extra minute to pay. It states that she has never been in a war but getting furious over minor happenings. 

Brannan Vines has never been to war, but her husband, Caleb, was sent to Iraq twice, where he served in the infantry as a designated marksman. He’s one of 103,200, or 228,875, or 336,000 Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan and came back with PTSD, depending on whom you ask, and one of 115,000 to 456,000 with traumatic brain injury. It’s hard to say, with the lack of definitive tests for the former, undertesting for the latter, underreporting, under or over-misdiagnosing of both. And as slippery as all that is, even less understood is the collateral damage, to families, to schools, to society—emotional and fiscal costs borne long after the war is over.

In the second paragraph of section one the author has multiple claims. The first one is factual claim because it uses numbers to show how many soldiers have been to Iraq or Afghanistan. The paragraph also explains how many come back with PTSD. A moral claim is also being used because the author says that many do not understand the collateral damage that is done to others by one person with PTSD.

Like Brannan’s symptoms. Hypervigilance sounds innocuous, but it is in fact exhaustingly distressing, a conditioned response to life-threatening situations. Imagine there’s a murderer in your house. And it is dark outside, and the electricity is out. Imagine your nervous system spiking, readying you as you feel your way along the walls, the sensitivity of your hearing, the tautness in your muscles, the alertness shooting around inside your skull. And then imagine feeling like that all the time.

In the final paragraph of section one the author describes PTSD in a couple claims. The author uses definition claim in the first sentence saying that Brannan has a symptom of hypervigilance that helps her in life-threatening situations.The bad part about having this is that sometimes the person has this feeling twenty four seven. An illustrative claim is being used because the author illustrates a situation where Brannan’s hypervigilance can help her in a horrible situation.

Posted in Claims, RavensFan | 1 Comment

Claims-Temporal

Posted on February 18, 2024 by temporal111

“Charles Marmar, a New York University professor who was on the team of the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, the most comprehensive study of combat stress ever conducted, points out that you really have to spend the money to treat PTSD, since the costs of not treating it are so much higher.”

The claim here that you have to spend more money to treat ptsd is a credibility claim because the author cites a credible figure for their argument

“There are an estimated 100,000 homeless vets on the street on any given night.”

This is a quantitative claim because its truth is dependent on a number.

“Experts say it’s nearly impossible to calculate what treating PTSD from Vietnam has and will cost American taxpayers, so vast are its impacts. There were 2.4 million soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and while no one is sure what PTSD among them will ultimately cost us, either, everyone agrees on one thing: If it’s not effectively treated, it won’t go away. When Caleb checked into his VA inpatient therapy in 2010, more than two-thirds of his fellow patients were veterans of Vietnam.”

This paragraph contains a lot of numerical claims, but the main claim, that ptsd won’t go away if not effectively treated, is a causal claim.

“Vietnam vets still make up the bulk of Danna’s clients—though she is assisting traumatized men who served in World War II, in the early years of which half the medical disability discharges were psychiatric, and some of those men still show up at Danna’s office and cry, and cry, and cry. Many people at her fundraiser are saying that she saved their lives, kept them from killing themselves, kept them off the streets—or out of the woods, as it were, where she sometimes found vets living on earth floors under cardboard boxes.” 

This is an illustrative claim, as it attempts to illustrate the generous work that Danna has done to describe the harsh situation that some of these veterans have been through.

“By way of example, she introduces me to Steve Holt and Charlene Payton Holt. Steve served in Vietnam, fought in the Tet Offensive. The chaplain assured him that he shouldn’t feel bad about killing gooks, but the chaplain was paid by the Army, and who took moral advice from a chaplain carrying a .38? Back at home, Steve drank wildly. He waged war with his wife, attempted to work odd jobs where he had as little contact with humans as possible. But then he got divorced, and then he got with Charlene in 2001, and then he got in a big fight with Charlene and pulled the rifles out and sent her fleeing into the night, through the woods to the closest neighbor’s house a mile away. But then he got inpatient psychiatric treatment in Seattle, several times, and found Jesus, and only ever has a beer or two, and now you have never seen two people so in love in any double-wide in the United States.”

This paragraph is another illustrative claim, because it tells a story and illustrates a picture of this person’s life and paints a picture.

Posted in Claims, Temporal | 1 Comment

Claims-Thatonepersonoverthere

Posted on February 18, 2024 by thatpersonoverthere

I was assigned section 14 

Meanwhile people like James Peterson, husband of Kateri of the Olive Garden breakdown, are signing up for experiments. James was so anxious and so suicidal that he couldn’t even muster the self-preservation to get into inpatient treatment. With three kids, eight, five, and two, and Kateri’s full-time job—as a VA nurse, actually—she could no longer manage his emotional plus physical problems: rheumatism consults, neuro consults for TBI, plus a burning rash on both feet he got in Fallujah in 2004. Chemical exposure, stress reaction, no one knows, but the skin cracks and opens up raw with lesions sometimes. Finally they enrolled him in a private clinical trial to get a needleful of anesthetic injected into a bundle of nerves at the top of his collarbone. Kateri writes me that just moments after the injection, he “went from balls-to-the-wall PTSD to BOOM chill.”

This entire section is based on an illustrative claim. This can be seen with the description of James’s sucide and family troubles in order to justify his willingness to go through with experimental treatment. Then it wanders off into a somewhat factual claim as there is clear evidence that the treatment whether placebo effects are behind the sudden change or not the treatment helped in some way or another. 

That’s when her symptoms got worse, precipitating another meltdown, this time at a steak house where she took him to celebrate his newfound calm. They’d “assumed the normal positions,” she with her back to the restaurant, he facing it so he could monitor everyone, and suddenly, a server dropped a tray out of her periphery, setting her circulatory system off at a million miles a minute. “He just ate his steak like nothing,” she says.

This is another example of a factual claim and an example of causal claim. Due to the experimental treatment the man’s temperament is much better to the point he can enjoy a steak dinner whilst worrying about noise sounds. This though alienates his wife from him. 

“When you’ve become hypervigilant, the place you are most functional is on the battlefield,” McGill’s Brunet explains. Caleb, despite his injuries and his admission that war was pretty excruciatingly awful, told me he wishes he could go back. Kateri, despite wishing her system hadn’t learned to run at a heightened state, at this point is like a drug addict, needing stimulation to maintain it. For the first time since Iraq, her husband felt at peace, and was able to enjoy a steak dinner with his wife. “He just sat there,” Kateri says.

His normalcy “was so distressing to me that I wanted to stab him.”

The last sentence of this whole section exhibits an example of a cause and effect claim. His disconcerted nature activated his wife to the point she wanted to stab him. It’s casual, despite the content being talked about. It’s a statement that would be typically made about something inconsequential, not anything serious. This person is just stating something about her husband that she found odd. This entire section consists of these types of jarring casualness with the information displayed. I mean it has to be, it’s normal for them to go through these types of events, and the disruption of that new normalcy is distressing in itself. It’s so factual and almost calculated because their discussing their normal life their normal life just so happens to be extremely calculated.

Posted in Claims, ThatPersonOverThere | 1 Comment

PTSD Claims — Holistic25

Posted on February 18, 2024 by holistic25

Section 13

“The amount of progress in Caleb’s six years of therapy has been frustrating for everyone.”

Taking a look at the opening sentence of section 13, it is notably an evaluative claim. Why? The author is judging Caleb’s lack of progress on the whole in relation to his surroundings. The quality of therapy is being judged in efforts of advancing past Caleb’s PTSD. Unfortunately, the author receives the sentiment of frustration from Caleb’s surroundings.

“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.”

There’s a bevy of claims to analyze in the reference of Alain Brunet and his direct quote. Alain is given quite an extensive introduction, “vice president of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and director of the Traumatic Stress Laboratory at McGill University in Canada.” This introduction is known as a credibility claim. This is straightforward – the credentials of Alain are given to attach responsibility to the claim.

In regard to Alains quote, since it’s a reference to an expert within the author of the Mother Jones article, it’s fair to say this is partly an attributive claim. The author passes off the message it’s getting across through Alain Brunet. The author uses Alain to verify the sentiment of optimism for advancement in PTSD treatment and its effect. The first part of Alains quote, “we have reason to be reasonably optimistic,” is an illustrative claim to evoke a particular emotion out of the audience, optimism based off the vague term of reason. In this case, it’s a prelude to the next sentence, which is a factual claim. There is no room left for doubt in the sentence that “Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD.” It’s interesting the author presents this sentence in a factual manner, due to the case study of Caleb in the beginning of this section, portraying the opposite sentiment than the factual claim it presents.

“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.”

Since this quote refers to methods being favorable over others to treat PTSD, this can be viewed as a comparative claim. In the eyes of the VA, there’s some non-verbal agreement that cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy are held on a pedestal in treating PTSD as opposed to other treatments. There’s some type of claim I’m also sensing in this quote that I can’t quite put a pulse on. The author uses the word theoretically, almost to demonstrate some model being pushed as a means to treat PTSD in a linear way (under the assumption all PTSD cases can be treated through cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy). But, as the quote implies, treating PTSD is not so linear despite commonalities across symptoms in PTSD patients.

“For severe cases, the agency offers inpatient programs, one of which Caleb resided in for three months in 2010.”

This sentence is a combination of both a categorical claim and a factual claim. As the section progresses, there seems to be a classification in severity of PTSD cases, as affirmed here by attributing Caleb to a severe case. In the same breath, Caleb’s stint in this inpatient program (classified as severe) was a total of three months in the year of 2010 (fact).

“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.”

For starters, this is an attributable claim setup by referencing the VA endorsing this therapy. Also, there’s a definition claim. EMDR therapy is introduced and encapsulated in a definition sense to explain this therapy (what it is and what it does).

“‘There’s a fairly strong consensus around CBT and EMDR,’ Brunet says.”

This is a proposal claim because although there’s strong evidence these therapies work, it is subject to undergo further investigation as the primary modalities in treating PTSD. Also, due to the fact that the author is quoting Brunet again, the author is attributing this information to Alain, making it an attributive claim as well.

“To stay up to date on the latest advances in PTSD treatment, the VA collaborates with outside entities through its Intramural Research Program.”

This is a factual claim and a credibility claim. The author is definitively letting the reader know the VA is current with the latest PTSD findings and attributing that fact to a source. In this case, the source is the entities within its Intramural Research Program.

“Currently, the agency is funding 130 PTSD-related studies, from testing whether hypertension drugs might help to examining the effectiveness of meditation therapy, or providing veterans with trauma-sensitive service dogs, like Caleb’s. The Mental Health Research Portfolio manager says the organization is “highly concerned and highly supportive” of PTSD research.”

There is a factual claim, a numerical claim, and an attribution claim. The numerical claim and factual claim are intertwined here in that the numeric (130 PTSD-related studies) is used within the factual claim that the agency is funding these studies to try and glean understanding on further PTSD treatment. The attribution claim comes when mentioning The Mental Health Research Portfolio manager. It highlights the sentiment the author is trying to get across, that there are entities aware, concerned, and supportive of treating PTSD patients.

“But a lot of FOV members and users are impatient with the progress.”

This is an evaluative claim because there is judgment (impatience) in relation to the situation (progression of PTSD treatments and their effectiveness). This entire section has been inspiring hope of new and improved treatment mechanisms, but the author subtly mentions its opposition, the FOV members.

“Up until 2006, the VA was spending $9.9 million, just 2.5 percent of its medical and prosthetic research budget, on PTSD studies. In 2009, funding was upped to $24.5 million.”

It is obvious there are factual claims in combination with numerical claims used in this quote. The quote runs off numbers corresponding with spending and funding. The claims are used to illustrate the spending habits of 2006 and that of 2009. Thus, a comparative claim has been birthed in this quote as well, that comparison being the spending and budget of 2006 compared to 2009.

“But studies take a long time, and any resulting new directives take even longer to be implemented.”

After building up momentum and encouragement to new PTSD treatment modalities, an evaluative claim is made to assess the harsh reality of science. Implementing and publishing studies to back hypothesis take time, discouraging to those looking for a quick solution to PTSD.

Posted in Claims, Holistic | 1 Comment

PTSD Claims —– Gymrat27

Posted on February 18, 2024 by Gymrat

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.
Posted in Claims, GymRat | 1 Comment

PTSD claims-DogLover

Posted on February 18, 2024 by doglover7025

I had section 9!

“Things were a little…off,” Caleb was edgy, distant, but he did not forget entire conversations minutes later, did not have to wait for a stable mental-health day and good moment between medication doses to be intimate with his wife, and then when he finally tried, pray to Christ for one of the times when it’s good sex, not one of the times when a car door slams outside and triggers him, or the emotion becomes so unbearable that he freezes, gets up, and walks wordlessly out the door.” 

This is an example of a illustrative claim, They’re showing us how Caleb is feeling and whats going on with him. This is done to make us feel bad for Caleb and show some insight on what PTSD really is. They use words like “edgy and distant” to show his emotional feelings.

“until she talked to Danna Hughes, founder of VVW. Danna had been through much of the exact same turmoil, decades ago, and had opened a center to help get Vietnam vets benefits and educate their spouses and communities about their condition.”

This is an example of a credibility claim. Credible founder “Danna Hughes” is claiming that her Vietnam Veteran Wives center will “educate their spouses and communities about their condition”

 “a nonprofit created “to help you find your way, find the information you need, and find a way not only to cope with life after combat…but to survive and thrive!” 

This is an example of casual claim, It’s using cause and effect. It’s showing that by joining the non-profit, it will help you “find your way, find the info you need, and find a way not only to cope with life after combat…but to survive and thrive”

“shows me the website for a summer camp that teaches military spy skills, Brannan gets back to work. Because she also helps thousands of other people—measured by website and social-media interactions—through Family of a Vet, a nonprofit”

This is an example of a factual claim. It talks about Brannan for the first time and how she has a job and they explain what her job is. 

Posted in Claims, DogLover | 1 Comment

PTSD Claims – Ilovemydog

Posted on February 18, 2024 by ilovemydog

BEGIN THE ONE-HOUR EXERCISE

Section 21

Who he is now is a handsome guy in his 60s with a white beard, big but well kept, who refers to his wife as “my bride” after nine years. Hanging around their trailer one day, I see them handle each other with immense patience, even when their computer takes forever to load and they can’t find the files they’re looking for because they’ve been crappily cataloged and it’s not clear whose fault that is. Charlene has long, graying dark hair parted down the middle and super-serious eyes, which she has to lower to compose herself for a minute when I ask her, alone, if she saved Steve’s life. “He loves me a lot,” she answers. “I’ve never known love like this. He is…awesome.”

  • This first section contains a variety of three different claims. This first is an evaluative claim. Charlene mentioned that their love is awesome and Steve mentioned that Charlene saved his life. It involves the judgment of their situation with each other. Another part of this section that is evaluative is the part of the journal that says “handsome” along with “well-kept.” The other claim mentioned in this journal section is when he “refers to his wife as ‘my bride’ after nine years.” This sentence is insanely illustrative. So the claim is an illustrative claim. For the reader, this section illustrates a picture of the guy and his bride. It lets the reader see how close they are to each other and what that connection does for them.Another part of this journal that is illustrative as well is the section that says “Hanging around their trailer one day, I see them handle each other with immense patience.” Again, the author is painting a picture of the couple for the reader to understand how the two act together when she is around. Lastly, Charlene is given a descriptive appearance towards the end of this paragraph. This is also an illustrative claim. “Charlene has long, graying dark hair parted down the middle…” This whole sentence is describing the way she looks. There is also a Factual Claim that is thrown into this first section as well. It is the last quote of the paragraph which is, “‘He loves me a lot,’ she answers. ‘I’ve never known love like this. He is…awesome.'” While this may not be true, since it is a direct quote there is always the possibility that it is true.

These most recent years, Steve is funnier—after all, he’s not just any Carson; his dad and Johnny were first cousins—but it’s not all good days. Sometimes, Charlene says, “I can feel him slipping down—it’s like this…vortex, this hole. And I try to grab him, like, ‘No! Don’t go down there!’ He can still get really depressed.” And hypervigilant. He doesn’t like living on Five Cent Ranch Road, which runs through a decidedly vulnerable valley.

  • This section also has a factual claim. In the first sentence, the part that mentions his dad and Johnny being first cousins is the factual claim. This claim can be proved due to the indisputable evidence. In this section, there is also an evaluative claim. Charlene’s concern about Steve slipping into a depressive state is evaluative because it involves judgment about the character’s dynamic and relationship with each other. Another claim in this section is a casual claim. When the vortex is talked about in the passage that is the casual claim. It suggests that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between Steve’s military experience and his mental health and well-being.

“She saved my life,” Steve says of Charlene, without my asking. Of the soldiers coming home with PTSD now, he says, “You need time. You need time, and perspective.” Decades after his service, the VA rated Steve at 100 percent PTSD disabled, but he’s found his way to his version of a joyful life. Although, he qualifies, he saw guys get thrown around in explosions the way Caleb got thrown around in explosions, but he can’t say how their lives turned out in the long run because in his war, with that less-advanced gear, those guys usually died.

  • Within this section of the passage, there is a variety of claims sprinkled throughout. There is a factual claim right at the beginning of the text. The part that speaks about Steve being rated at 100 percent PTSD disabled is factual. This claim can be proved. This can also be considered a quantitative or numerical claim. What is given to the reader is a percentage and it depends on the reliability of the measurements. There are also illustrative claims. The situations talked about in this section are being illustrated to the reader.

Finally, Steve and Charlene find what they’re looking for on their computer: pictures of the land they bought nearby. Steve’s building an artist’s studio for Charlene on it, and eventually, hopefully, a house for the two of them. At the very top of a largely uninhabited hill, it will be hell—and sometimes impossible—to get down in winter because of the snow, but Steve doesn’t care, and wants to grow old with Charlene and die up there. At that elevation, with that vantage point, it’s one of the most defensible pieces of land in town.

  • In this section of the passage, there are also illustrative claims. The part that speaks of a house for the two of them and how it will be on the top of a hill is the illustrative part. These claims are used to draw a picture for the reader.

In the Vines’ household in Alabama, at any unpredictable time of night, the nightmare starts in Iraq.

The desert sun is blinding, invasive; all eyes blink roughly with under-eyelid dust. It smells like blood, even before the shot slices through the Humvee and strikes Caleb in the chest. The vehicle stops, the other four guys get out, hollering, the rest of the unit firing their weapons, that awful echo at the end of an M16 round. Someone’s yelling for the medic and an indiscernible string of noises seeps out of Caleb’s mouth while he’s dying. He’s dying. He’s bleeding warm and fast, and he’s not going to make it.

  • Towards the end of this section, there are a lot of illustrative claims. From the desert sun to the description of Caleb’s condition, all the descriptors are used to draw a picture for the reader.
Posted in Claims, ILoveMyDog | 4 Comments

PTSD Claims-Eaglesfan

Posted on February 18, 2024 by Brandon Sigall

Section 2:

Caleb has been home since 2006, way more than enough time for Brannan to catch his symptoms. The house, in a subdivision a little removed from one of many shopping centers in a small town in the southwest corner of Alabama, is often quiet as a morgue. You can hear the cat padding around. The air conditioner whooshes, a clock ticks. When a sound erupts—Caleb screaming at Brannan because she’s just woken him up from a nightmare, after making sure she’s at least an arm’s length away in case he wakes up swinging—the ensuing silence seems even denser. Even when everyone’s in the family room watching TV, it’s only connected to Netflix and not to cable, since news is often a trigger. Brannan and Caleb can be tense with their own agitation, and tense about each other’s. Their German shepherd, a service dog trained to help veterans with PTSD, is ready to alert Caleb to triggers by barking, or to calm him by jumping onto his chest. This PTSD picture is worse than some, but much better, Brannan knows, than those that have devolved into drug addiction and rehab stints and relapses. She has not, unlike military wives she advises, ever been beat up. Nor jumped out of her own bed when she got touched in the middle of the night for fear of being raped, again. Still.

The author makes multiple types of claims in the long paragraph. One type of claim made is a categorical claim. Talking about how Caleb sometimes swings in the middle of the night and how the news is a trigger and when a clock ticks and a air conditioner whooshes. These are all symptoms of how a person might react with PTSD. The author also makes a comparative claim when they say this PTSD picture is worse then some but better then those that have drug addictions. Another part to the comparative claim is when it says the wife unlike other wives has not been beaten up. The author makes an illustrative claim when they say their dog who is trained to help soldiers with PTSD has to alert Caleb by barking or jumping on his chest to calm him down. This is done to show just how severe and sad Caleb’s case is.

“Sometimes I can’t do the laundry,” Brannan explains, reclining on her couch. “And it’s not like, ‘Oh, I’m too tired to do the laundry,’ it’s like, ‘Um, I don’t understand how to turn the washing machine on.’ I am looking at a washing machine and a pile of laundry and my brain is literally overwhelmed by trying to figure out how to reconcile them.” She sounds like she might start crying, not because she is, but because that’s how she always sounds, like she’s talking from the top of a clenched throat, tonally shaky and thin. She looks relaxed for the moment, though, the sun shining through the windows onto her face in this lovely leafy suburb. We raise the blinds in the afternoons, but only if we are alone. When we hear Caleb pulling back in the driveway, we jump up and grab their strings, plunging the living room back into its usual necessary darkness.

The author makes this paragraph one big attributive claim as well as a Illustrative claim.The author gives a idea of how Brannan really feels and how she acts by using her words. The author also writes this to make the audience feel sympathy for Brannan. She talks about all her struggles in the paragraph and how she can’t even do certain everyday life things some days. This is done to make the audience feel bad for Brannan and maybe better understand the struggles of dealing with someone who has PTSD.

The Vineses’ wedding album is gorgeous, leather-bound, older and dustier than you might expect given their youth. Brannan is 32 now, but in her portraits with the big white dress and lacy veil she’s not even old enough to drink. There were 500 people at the ceremony. Even the mayor was there. And there’s Caleb, slim, in a tux, three years older than Brannan at 22, in every single picture just about the smilingest motherfucker you’ve ever seen, in a shy kind of way.

This paragraph has multiple types of claims. One claim type is a credibility claim. The claim is made when the author said even the mayor was at their wedding. Another claim made is a numerical claim. This is made when the author says there were 500 people at the cermony. The final type of claim made in this paragraph was a factual claim. This is made a few times when it says Brennan is now 32 and when Caleb was three years older then Brannan at 22.

Now, he’s rounder, heavier, bearded, and long-haired, obviously tough even if he
weren’t prone to wearing a COMBAT INFANTRYMAN cap, but still not the guy you
picture when you see his “Disabled Veteran” license plates. Not the old ‘Nam guy
with a limp, or maybe the young legless Iraq survivor, that you’d expect.

This whole paragraph is a evaluative claim. Talking about how Caleb is different now and how he is bigger, heavier, but he is still tough. It also makes a comparative claim. This is made when the author says Caleb is not the guy you picture when seeing disabled veteran license plates. He’s not the old Nam guy you’d expect.

Posted in Claims, EaglesFan | 1 Comment

PTSD Claims —SNOWMAN.

Posted on February 18, 2024 by Snowman10

BEGIN THE ONE-HOUR EXERCISE

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. 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.” That was the impetus for the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, which since 2005 has added 70 therapists to military installations around the country. Mostly what the program provides is couples’ counseling. 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 way to go.”

  • This section contains a combination of several types of claims. It makes a Factual claim by presenting statistics and data about the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, including the addition of 70 therapists to military installations since 2005 and the availability of 31 child psychiatrists within the Army. René Robichaux’s assertion about the impact of mental health issues within family systems categorizes the effects, making it a Categorical claim. He suggests that every member of a family system is negatively impacted by mental health issues. The passage also implies a Causal claim by suggesting that the recognition of the negative impact of mental health issues on family members prompted the establishment of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program. Finally, Robichaux’s statement that “We’re better than we were” evaluates the progress made in addressing mental health needs within military families, making it an Evaluative claim. He acknowledges improvement while also indicating that further progress is needed.

Of course, the Army only helps families of active-duty personnel. It’s the Department of Veterans Affairs that’s charged with treating the problems that can persist long past discharge. But “if you asked the VA to treat your kids, they would think it was nonsense,” says Hofstra’s Motta.

  • This section is a part of the Attributive ClaimIt attributes a belief or perspective to a certain group or entity. Specifically, it suggests that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would not consider treating the children of veterans for mental health issues, as indicated by the statement attributed to Hofstra’s Motta.

When I asked the VA if the organization would treat kids for secondary trauma, its spokespeople stressed that it has made great strides in family services in recent years, rolling out its own program for couples’ counseling and parenting training. “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; 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.” 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 section contains a combination of several claims.it has Factual Claim The passage presents factual information about the VA’s efforts in family services, such as the rollout of programs for couples’ counseling and parenting training. Categorical Claim Susan McCutcheon and Shirley Glynn’s assertions categorize the VA’s approach to treating secondary trauma in families. They suggest that the focus is on strengthening parents and ensuring veterans receive effective treatment. Evaluative Claim Brannan’s statement, “You’re on your own,” evaluates the level of support provided by the VA to families dealing with secondary trauma. It implies a lack of assistance or guidance from the VA in finding treatment for children.
Posted in Claims, Snowman | 3 Comments

PTSD Claims — Ilovebees

Posted on February 18, 2024 by ilovebeesss

BEGIN THE ONE-HOUR EXERCISE

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 Kateri’s eight-year-old son now counts the exits in new spaces he enters, and points them out to his loved ones until war or fire fails to break out, and everyone is safely back home. 

  • This entire section is part of an Evaluative claim as it implies a judgment or rather evaluation about the reader’s possible feelings of guilt for questioning why Brannan does not get a divorce, which implies a sense of curiosity and possible guilt about her choices.

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.

  • This section contains a combination of several types of claims. It makes a Factual claim by presenting statistics and data on divorce rates among veterans, the correlation between post-traumatic stress disorder and divorce, and the relationship between broken relationships and suicides among veterans. It also has a Quantitative or Numerical claim since, as mentioned above, it includes numerical data such as percentages to support its statements. It also has a Comparative claim, as it compares the divorce rates of veterans with and without PTSD, highlighting the difference. And finally, it also includes a claim of Credibility as it relies on data from army records to support its claims, which implies credibility and trustworthiness.

Brannan fully supports any wife—who feels that she or her children are in danger, or in an untenable mental-health environment, or for whatever reason—who decides to leave. She’s here, through Family of a Vet, to help those people. But she’s also there for those FOV users who, like her, have decided to stay. “I have enormous respect for Caleb,” she explains if you ask her why. “He has never stopped fighting for this family. Now, we’ve had little breaks from therapy, but he never stopped going to therapy. I love him,” she repeats, defensively at times.

  • This section has a combination of categorical, and ethical or moral claims. It is a categorical claim as Brannan mentions and shows her support for wives who feel their safety or mental health is at risk and decide to leave, as well as those who decide to stay by listing different scenarios and individuals. This section also has an Ethical or Moral claim by showing Brannan’s support for wives who leave dangerous situations and her admiration for Caleb’s dedication. This is based on Brena’s morals in addition to analyzing a larger issue in society such as domestic abuse.

He is her friend, and her first love, and her rock, and her lifeline, her blossoming young daughter’s father, her ally, and her hero, she tells Caleb when he asks. Because the person who most often asks Brannan why she stays with her husband is her husband.

  • The sentence is an Evaluative Claim since it expresses Brannan’s evaluation or opinion about her husband, Caleb, highlighting various roles and qualities he holds in her life. It is also a Categorical Claim since it categorizes all the qualities she loves about her husband.
Posted in Claims, ILoveBees | 1 Comment