I was assigned to read section 16 of the article “Is PSTD Contagious?”. 

“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.” – This is a factual claim. This claim is telling you the fact that exists beyond doubt that Hovda delivered the Pentagon this recommendation. The author writes this fact without evaluating the morality or quality of the recommendation. 

“Hovda says 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 attributive claim. The author states that Hovda “says” this, not passing it off as a fact but a statement about what Hovda said.

“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 an evaluative claim. The author states it wouldn’t “take a neuroscientist” to figure out the stated fact, claiming that this fact should be obvious. This is a judgment of how we should be able to figure this out easily because it’s very obvious. 

“Eventually, Hovda’s cause prevailed. These days, there are MRIs in theater, assessments after blasts, mandatory rest periods after a concussion.” – This is a causal claim. The author states the effect of Hovda’s cause and how things have changed. This claim is a simple cause and effect of the previous information stated. 

“When people ask Hovda if they’re gonna get better, he encourages them that they’re gonna get different.” – This is an attributive claim. Once again; the author states that Hovda “encourages” those who ask the question, which doesn’t mean that it is a fact, but just what Hovda “said”. 

“that they should not panic” – This is a recommendation claim, as it states that they “should not” panic despite the claim presented before. The statement that they “should not panic” is a recommendation of what they should do.

“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” – The first few words (“There’s good rehabilitation strategies”) is a evaluative claim, as it states the quality of the rehabilitation strategies there. The rest of the quote is a recommendation claim, as it tells those to “learn what your deficits are” as a recommendation or proposal.

“The human brain has an enormous amount of plasticity. New cells are born every day” – This is a factual claim. The author states that the “human brain has an enormous amount of plasticity” as a fact beyond doubt.

“New connections can be made” – This is a casual claim, as it states a prediction about what new connections can be made. 

“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 is also a casual claim (and maybe an evaluative claim because it states that it is “good news” rather than bad) because it states the effect of not having the ability to recover from a brain injury.