“In 2009, it was Hovda who delivered the Pentagon the recommendation that because multiple concussions could cause serious long-term injury, concussions need time to heal. A fight ensued.”
This can be a factual claim and causal claim, as the sentence starts with saying Hovda delivered a recommendation to the Pentagon about a causal claim, that concussions need time to heal because of possible long-term injury. Some might say it is a recommendation claim because it literally says recommendation, but overall it seems more of a causal or factual.
“some of the Army’s best doctors implied that if soldiers were told they needed rest after concussions, it was going to usher in an epidemic of fakers, or retired guys claiming disability way after the fact.”
This is an evaluative claim because it explains how doctor’s believe soldiers will fake concussions after hearing that if they get one they can rest. The doctors have evaluated what would inevitably happen if soldiers were told after a concussion you need rest to help heal, making the claim evaluative.
“Although, the NFL was given the same memo in the 1990s, and brain damage in boxers is even older news, so it doesn’t seem like it would take a neuroscientist—or the top medical brass of an Army that builds laser cannons—to figure out that if 25 mph punches to the head cause brain damage, IED blasts that hit at 330 mph probably do too.”
This is a factual claim and causal claim, displaying how the NFL was told concussions need time to heal as well. It is mostly a causal claim, talking about how 25 mph punches and IED blasts will most definitely cause brain damage.
“These days, there are MRIs in theater, assessments after blasts, mandatory rest periods after a concussion. But those reforms came seven years into the Iraq War, after Caleb and a million other soldiers were already home.”
This is a factual claim, it can be proven and has evidence that is not arguable. It says when MRIs are used and how these reforms were put into place after millions of soldiers came back home from the Iraq War, which have known dates.
“When people ask Hovda if they’re gonna get better, he encourages them that they’re gonna get different. That they will never be the same—researchers “have tried hyperbaric oxygen, hundreds of clinical trials; we’re just failing miserably in trying to make a difference”—but that they should not panic.”
This is a recommendation claim, with the last sentence, “that they should not panic” making that the most clear. Hovda is recommending or proposing to these people that they are different and will never be the same, but that it is nothing to panic over. It could also be considered a factual or numerical/comparative claim when talking about the hundreds of clinical trials conducted by researchers that ultimately failed.
““There’s good rehabilitation strategies: learn what your deficits are, learn that you’re not going crazy, that you just can’t do what you used to do,” he says.”
This is a recommendation claim, as Hovda is saying what kind of rehabilitation strategies there are. It can also be a categorical claim because of the listing of the strategies.
““The human brain has an enormous amount of plasticity. New cells are born every day. New connections can be made.””
This is a factual claim, telling us about the human brain. New cells being born every day and how new connections are made from this is scientifically proven.
““The good news is, teleologically speaking, if we didn’t have the ability to recover from brain injury, we’d have ended up as somebody’s breakfast.””This comes off most as a causal claim, as it is the opinion or prediction of what would happen if we didn’t have the ability to recover from brain injuries. They are stating what they believe would happen, and it is also the cause of it too.