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 statement above is an example of casual claim because Hovada stated that army doctors said that if soldiers were given a rest period after concussions. Old and new soldiers would take advantage of the suggestion after experiencing a concussion. This could also be considered a creditability claim because Hovada got the information from the best doctors in the army. Another claim the statement is attributive because it is not Hovada saying veterans and new coming soldiers would take advantage but the doctors are implying that the new treatment would start something.
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 an example of a quantitative claim because it uses numbers to make a statement instead of using them to state statistics.
But those reforms came seven years into the Iraq War, after Caleb and a million other soldiers were already home.
This is an example of an ethical claim because it could be interpreted as SEVEN YEARS being a long time to take proper precautions when soldiers get concussions. Millions of soldiers have already been home and are suffering complications after a non-treated concussion.
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 an example of a categorical claim because it names different approaches that researchers took to improve the problems when it comes to soldiers’ health after time serving. It could also be an example of a comparative claim since they could never be the same researchers they were who tried all those experiments.
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 an example of an illustrative claim because the author is getting his point across when stating brains are resilient. After all, if they were not then we would be dead.
“The human brain has an enormous amount of plasticity. New cells are born every day.
This is an example of a definitive claim because it defines what the brain has and how it produces new cells every day.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
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 statement above is an example of a casual claim because Hovda stated that army doctors said that if soldiers were given a rest period after concussions, old and new soldiers would take advantage of the suggestion after experiencing a concussion.
—Agree, this is a causal claim by the doctors, or so Hovda claims those “best doctors” claim. Where do you locate the cynicism, HotGirl? Do the doctors suspect veterans of being fakers? Or does Hovda interpret what a few doctors say about fakery? Hard to tell, isn’t it?, when we get three steps away from the behavior of the veterans.
This could also be considered a creditability claim because Hovada got the information from the best doctors in the army.
—Agree here, too, HotGirl. Hovda characterizes his sources as “best doctors” to give their reported testimony greater credibility.
Another claim the statement is attributive because it is not Hovda saying veterans and new coming soldiers would take advantage but the doctors are implying that the new treatment would start something.
—Right again. In fact, the entire “claim chain” is extremely vulnerable to corruption, isn’t it? The “best doctors” might be misinterpreting the actions of veterans, intentionally or otherwise. Hovda might be inflating what he heard from one doctor into “some of the army’s best doctors” to bolster his weak claim. Even Mac MacClellan, author of the Mother Jones article, could be presenting Hovda’s claim in a way to mislead us.
It might help to consider that Hovda made the recommendation to the Army that soldiers “need time to heal” following multiple concussions. The recommendation from “best doctors” weakens his position, so, if he’s willing to share it, we might be more inclined to believe it, right?
Nice work. Good catch to find several claims in this nest of testimony. 🙂
Thank You Professor.
You left several claims on the table in the “NFL paragraph,” HotGirlSemester, but I have faith you would have noted them if I’d given you more time.
Provisionally graded.
For grade improvement, if you wish, expand your NFL entry to include a couple more well-described claims.
As always, Responses to feedback are strenuously recommended even if you decline to revise.
Ok I will edit and resend. Thank you for the feedback.