Counterintuitive Spring 2023

Section 14

Chemical exposure, stress reaction, no one knows, but the skin cracks and opens up raw with lesions sometimes. 

The author expresses an Evaluative Claim by using her judgement. It is explained that certain factors may cause a type of wound in the skin. She uses the word “sometimes” to support her claim by inferring prior reported cases.

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.

This quote is also an Evaluative Claim, as the author uses “needful” to argue that the treatment was very necessary. In addition, a Recommendation Claim could be evaluated due to the author saying “finally”, which can express her opinion that action should be taken earlier.

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.

The quote’s Factual Claim states how Kateri’s symptoms had worsened. the author proves this by telling the readers that she had a “meltdown” at a resturant.

For the first time since Iraq, her husband felt at peace, and was able to enjoy a steak dinner with his wife.

This is an Analogy Claim. The author uses a time in Jame’s life when we understand he felt calm to explain his level of calmness now. By comparing these two times of emotion it makes it clear to the reader to understand her claim.

1.“We have reason to be reasonably optimistic. Psychotherapy does work for typical PTSD.” 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 factual claim from Alain Brunet that psychotherapy can help those with PTSD as their reason is beneficial. Although VA uses cognitive-behavioral and exposure therapies that lets thoses with PTSD to talk with their therapists about their traumatic moments in factual detail. 

2. 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 definition claim, in which this therapy is described to restore traumatic memories through via stimulus and discussion with the victim.

3. The VA collaborates with outside entities through 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.

This sentence uses the evaluative numerical claim of the VA getting “outside entities” to conduct 130 PTSD-related studies on veterans (numerical) to learn of the hypertension drug’s usefulness in meditation therapy or service-dogs trained to be aware of the owner’s PTSD happening (Evaluative).

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

This is a numerical and causal claim using the medical and prosthetic research budget and how the VA was spending millions on it until 2006 and was boosted to another million in 2009. Causing the FOV members and users becoming uneasy from this study taking too long.

Section 15

There are trials where patients take MDMA (ecstasy’s active ingredient) while talking about trauma to promote more positive and less scary associations with the events.

-The author uses a casual claim here as there is an assertion that the use of MDMA will cause patients to use more positive associations with their events. This is a cause and effect relationship. The cause being the use of the MDMA, having the effect of patients having a more positive association when talking of their trauma.

Some of the most interesting research involves beta-blockers, drugs that suppress the adrenaline response. In one small study, trauma victims given beta-blockers within six hours of the incident had a 40 percent less likelihood of developing PTSD. Brunet runs trials where patients take beta-blockers while talking about trauma so their reactions are weakened and then presumably lessened the next time it comes up, so far with promising results.

– This claim is a factual claim. The author starts with an introduction to some “interesting research.” Then adds the support by introducing a small study. This study cannot be argued – at least without someone conducting more research – making it a factual claim. The author then proceeds to expand on the trials in the study.

Like traumatic brain injury. Researchers posit that TBI can make the brain more vulnerable to PTSD, or that it can exacerbate its symptoms of exhaustion, agitation, confusion, headaches.

– The author uses what seems to be a categorical claim. The author starts off the claim by connecting TBI to being something that heightens the brain’s possibility of falling to PTSD. The author then lists other aftermath possibilities of TBI, labelling PTSD in their category.

They’re not positive about that, or about whether TBI makes PTSD harder to treat.

– This is an evaluative claim. With thorough evaluation of TBI and the connection to PTSD, there is still no conclusive evidence whether or not TBI makes PTSD more difficult to treat.

Section 12

“By this point, you might be wondering, and possibly feeling guilty about wondering, why Brannan doesn’t just get divorced.“

—This quote could either be categorized as an Ethical or Moral claim or a Recommendation or Proposal Claim. It could be seen as an Ethical or Moral claim because of the quote, “possibly feeling guilty.” It could also be a Recommendation or Proposal Claim because of the question proposed in the following quote, “why Brannan doesn’t just get divorced.”

“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.“

—This entire quote is a Factual Claim because of the statistics used to illustrate how destructive PTSD victims can be to themselves as well as their families. None of this information can be disputed because these statistics were pulled from authentic conduction studies. 

SECTION 17

And then she’ll just sit and listen while he says he cannot get it out of his head, about how if he had caught that fucking sniper, that enemy sniper he’d been trying to get, that’d been following them around, terrorizing their unit, if he’d have managed to kill him like he was supposed to, then the sniper wouldn’t have gotten off the shot that killed his buddy.

-This is an example of a causal claim and almost a proposal claim. Caleb states that if he was able to do something different in the situation than the effects of what had happened while he was in the war would be drastically different. The proposal claim is evident in the fact that he also trying to convince himself that if his actions were different then he wouldn’t be having a “bad time.”

six years after Caleb’s service ended

-It’s a small but overall still a factual claim because Caleb’s service ended without a doubt.

“Of course, he’s too cranky to be happy about anything, and he’ll be mad because Katie won’t eat it because I spent all day makin’ it and the only thing she wants to eat right now is pancakes.”

-This is an example of a Factual claim because of the relationship between Katie not wanting to eat will effectively make Caleb upset. Theres a correlation between her actions and how it can interrupt his emotions.

These are supposed to be her easy months, she sighs, April and May and June, before the anniversaries of his worst firefights—many of them in Ramadi; a lot of bad things happened in Ramadi—exacerbate his flashbacks and nightmares. That’s usually September through January, the “really bad” months

-This is an example of a comparative claim. It reflects the months in which Caleb’s PTSD usually peaks in settles. In this case, during the spring, Caleb’s PTSD is calm because his memories do not correlate during this time, so the war isn’t as prevalent in his life compared to the months in the fall. In comparison, he was a harder time during the fall month because this was the time he was in the war. 

“Its to help kids like that”

• This claim may seem thoughtful, however, it really alienates the children being spoken of by labeling them as “the other”.
• This claim suggests that these kids have not gotten sufficient assistance for their situation and calls for a need to change that.
• This claim states that the thing being used for the children is beneficial and necessary, which could be argued. It falls under an evaluative claim.

“Brannan and her volunteers put together an informational packet on secondary trauma for parents to give to teachers”

• The wording “Brannan and her volunteers” states in a way that Brannan is the driving force and the volunteers are merely her followers, which is true to an extent but also creates a dividing language between those involved in the project.
• “put together an informational packet” is vague-does this include stats? Stories? Ways to help? What is in the packet that makes it so important?
• “For parents to give to teachers” is not clear-how will it be distributed? Are they expecting all teachers to care about the situation? It needs more detail on how this information will be presented.
• This claim is most likely a causal claim because it is essentially explaining that the packets will cause teachers to consider the issue at hand.

“explaining their battle-worthy idiosyncrasies and sensory-processing sensitivities.”

• The word “their” is not clear in who it is referring to-the children? The parents? The teachers?
• This entire sentence honestly confuses me-it uses big words to its disadvantage and the meaning behind the sentence gets lost.
• The words “battle-worthy idiosyncrasies and sensory-processing sensitivities” suggest symptoms of being in close contact with someone with PTSD.
• This is a factual claim as it explains exactly what is in the packet.
• This is also a categorical claim because it categorizes the idiosyncrasies and sensitivities battles that the children have to face.

“They’re common enough problems”

• This sentence can be interpreted two different ways: either as these problems are not necessarily valid, but are common enough that they should be taken seriously, which is a disrespectful way of speaking of this issue.
• The more likely intended meaning behind this phrase is that the problem has occurred so many times that it has drawn quite a lot of attention to itself and raised alarm.
• This is an arguable claim that’s quality and truth can be judged and/or argued, making it an evaluative claim.
• This is also a quantitative claim because even though no specific amount is stated, the single word “enough” suggests that there is a borderline between common and not common.  

“the Department of Health and Human Services got in touch with Brannan about distributing the packet more widely.”

• This adds a sense of urgency to the cause, as the Department of Health and Human Services felt the need to get involved.
• What does “more widely” refer to?
• Why did the DHHS want to get their hands in on this project? Why does it matter to them?
• This is a factual claim because there is no disputing that this happened-it is a fact that the DHHS contacted Brannan.

“Brannan gave the packet to Katie’s kindergarten teacher, but thinks the teacher just saw it as an excuse for bad behavior.”

• This sentence gives no insight into the teacher’s perspective. Brannan may have approached the teacher angrily or forcefully, giving the teacher a reason to believe that the packet was an excuse for bad behavior.
• “Thinks” does not allow readers to trust Brannan at all. It is claiming that the situation is entirely in Brannan’s head and she is exaggerating the conflict
• This statement is making a bold claim, which labels it as an ethical/moral claim. It is essentially stating that the teacher is in the wrong and that Brennan deserves to be listened to. It is one-sided and quite close-minded.

“Last fall, she switched Katie to a different school, where she hopes more understanding will lead to less anxiety.”

• “She switched Katie to a different school”-was this change consensual? Did Katie feel understood? Furthermore, did Brannan ever stop to ask Katie how she felt she was treated in school at all?
• “She hopes”-does she have reason to believe that anything will change? What is this hope based on and how does she think it will be achieved?
• “More understanding will lead to less anxiety”-this phrase does not name anyone, which is good but also implies that the change will magically happen, which is highly unlikely.
• This is a causal claim because it states that switching schools will cause a change in anxiety.

“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.