BEGIN THE ONE-HOUR EXERCISE: Section 7
- 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 underway.
This first part of the sentence is a numerical claim because the author states how long the study has been going on and how many families were involved in the study. The second part of the sentence is a factual claim as the study being the largest of its kind can be quantified and proved. It’s non-disputable.
- 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.”
The author uses a credibility claim as the author references René Robichaux, a social-work programs manager for the US Army Medical Command. It’s factual that Robichaux talks about how PTSD not only impacts the person but also the family system.
- 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.
This sentence is a casual claim with a numerical claim at the end. The program is “mostly” couples counseling but there’s also help for children through child psychiatrists. The numerical claim is that the Army has 31 child psychiatrists.
- 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 small paragraph has a casual claim, attributive claim, and factual claim all into one. The Army only helping families of active duty is casual because it asserts the circumstances and preconditions that the Army will help those families only if they’re still on active-duty and not veterans. It’s factual that the Department of Veterans Affairs is tasked with treating problems past discharge. It’s attributive that they’re quoting Hofstra Motta to help support their claim by signaling they’re showing us someone else’s claim.
- “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.”
The paragraph has a credibility claim that could also be an attributive claim. The author is showing the claim of another person(s) while also naming the person(s) and their profession(s), in this case, Susan McCutcheon, national director for Family Services, Women’s Mental Health, and Military Sexual Trauma at the VA and Shirley Gylnn a VA clinical research psychologist. They share their claims on helping military families that are dealing with PTSD.
- 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.
There is a mixture of recommendation claims and attributive claims. It’s recommended that parents find their children a psychologist making the proposal that they should or they will be “on their own.” It’s attributive because they’re putting Brannan’s claims that it’s a good time to get good referrals on child psychologists before it’s too late.
Nice work, OV. I’ve found twice as many claims as you have, but I’m putting that down to the time limit I imposed on you.
One thing to be very aware of is that when an Author selects a quote, it’s certainly Attributive and therefore not the Author’s claim, but also, it’s selected for a reason.
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.
—Why did Mac MacClellan select Motta’s quote? Because she believes, with Motta, that it’s nonsense to treat veterans’ kids? Elsewhere she notes that the Army has 31 child psychiatrists. If the Army treats the kids of active soldiers, why is it nonsense to treat the kids of vets?