Claims-Frogs02

C1 The amount of progress in Caleb’s six years of therapy has been frustrating for everyone. 

This is an evaluative claim because it is a judgement that every single person has been frustrated by Caleb’s six years of therapy. This is not known and it is not a fact. It’s a judgement that everyone has been frustrated with. 

C2 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.” 

This is an evaluative claim because it is optimistic that Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD. It is a judgement that it works so it is a evaluative claim. 

C3  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. 

This is a definition and categorical claim. It defines cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy and how they are traumatic events that are hashed out and rehashed until they become less consuming. It can be considered categorical too because it gives examples of behavioral therapy and exposure therapy. These belong to what the VA favors category. This is also causal because it has cause and effect. The cause is the VA tends to favor cognitive-behavioral therapy and exposure therapy, the effect is the traumatic events are hashed out and rehashed until they become, theoretically, less consuming. 

C4 Some state VA offices also offer group therapy.

This is an evaluative claim because it is a judgement on a situation. The judgement on the situation of PTSD got offices to off group therapy. 

C5  For severe cases, the agency offers inpatient programs, one of which Caleb resided in for three months in 2010. 

This is a factual claim because there’s no doubt that Caleb didn’t reside in a program for three months in 2010. It can also be considered a causal claim because of the cause and effect. If there is a severe case, agencies will offer inpatient programs.

C6 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. 

This is a factual claim because it explains the theory and how memories of traumatic events are, in effect, improperly stored, and tries to refine them by discussing those memories while providing visual or auditory stimulus. It is factual. This can be proven by evidence. It is also definitional because it defines EDMR. It describes the results of the treatment so it’s causal, and because it’s “based on the theory,” it’s also evaluative.

C7 “There’s a fairly strong consensus around CBT and EMDR,” Brunet says. While veterans are waiting for those to work, they’re often prescribed complicated antidepressant-based pharmacological cocktails.

This is a causal claim because it is cause and effect. The cause would be veterans waiting for those to work and the effect would be they are prescribed complicated antidepressants-based pharmacological cocktails. This can also be an evaluative claim due to the judgement of the veterans waiting for work and what they can be prescribed.

C8 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 an ethical claim because it is placing a judgement on the latest advances in PTSD treatment. It is saying that the VA collaborates with outside entities through its Intramural Research Program. It can also be considered a factual claim because the treatment is without a doubt collaborating in the outside entities through its Intramural Research Program.

C9  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. 

This is a numerical claim because it is a measurement of how many PTSD related studies are being tested from hypertension drugs that might help to examine the effectiveness of meditation therapy or veterans with trauma sensitive service dogs. It is a measurement to see how effective service dogs are. This is a continue of the ethical claim and its judgement being placed. 

C10 The Mental Health Research Portfolio manager says the organization is “highly concerned and highly supportive” of PTSD research.

This is an evaluative claim because it is coming from a manager and it is not factual what he says. The organization is highlight concerned and highly supportive can be argued therefore it is an evaluative claim. 

C11 But a lot of FOV members and users are impatient with the progress.

This is also an evaluative claim because the point of FOV members and users being impatient with progress can also be argued because not all FOV members are the same. Not all of them are impatient with the progress and that can be argued. 

C12 Up until 2006, the VA was spending $9.9 million, just 2.5 percent of its medical and prosthetic research budget, on PTSD studies.

This is a numerical and factual claim because it is a real stated fact and it also depends on the reliability of the measurements by using prices of budgets. This can also be evaluative because it includes judgement of how much the VA was spending.

C13 In 2009, funding was upped to $24.5 million.

This is a quantitative Claim because it is based on the measurements of the funding and how it was raised to 24.5 million dollars. It can show whether a statement is factual or not. It helps provide background information to see how much the claim is realistic or not. This is also evaluative because it is a judgement of the funding that was upped to 24.5 million dollars. 

C14 But studies take a long time, and any resulting new directives take even longer to be implemented.

This is a comparative claim because it is comparing studies back then to now and how any resulting directives take even longer now to be implemented. This can help readers understand how much something has changed and whether to believe if it is factual or not. The author is stating that it could take a very long time for any new results and we shouldn’t be expecting any success any time soon.

This entry was posted in Feedback Please, frogs, PTSD Claims. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s