20

“Charles Marmar, a New York University professor who was on the team of the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study”

This is a credibility claim. The author acknowledges Marmar’s accomplishments and that they can be proven to be true.

, the most comprehensive study of combat stress ever conducted,

“points out that you really have to spend the money to treat PTSD, since the costs of not treating it are so much higher.”

This claim is an evaluative claim. This is because a credential source is commenting on effectiveness of PTSD treatment and the side effects. This claim could be arguable and could be supported.

“Personal tragedy, suicide, depression, alcohol and drug use, reliving terror,” he rattles off as consequences. “Stress-related health problems—cardiovascular, immunologic. Heart attacks, stroke, and even dementia.”

This claim is a categorical claim. This is because the author is listing possible consequences of PTSD.

Residential rehab programs, and motor vehicle accidents because people with PTSD self-medicate and crash cars; the cost of domestic violence; the cost of children and grandchildren of combat vets witnessing domestic violence.

“The treatment and compensation disability programs have cost billions.”

This is a factual claim because with further research the claim can be proven true.

“And the costs of the untreated are probably in the tens of billions. They’re enormous.”

This is an evaluative claim. This is because this claim is arguable and could potentially be supported by further research.

” Police time, court costs, prison time for sick vets who came home to commit soldier-style shoot-’em-ups or plain desperate crimes. Lost wages. Nonprofit assistance, outreach, social services.

“There are an estimated 100,000 homeless vets on the street on any given night.”

This is a numerical claim because the author is citing in numbers how many homeless vets are on the streets.

Experts say it’s nearly impossible to calculate what treating PTSD from Vietnam has and will cost American taxpayers, so vast are its impacts.

“There were 2.4 million soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan”

This is a factual claim because further research can prove this statement to be true.

, and while no one is sure what PTSD among them will ultimately cost us, either, everyone agrees on one thing:

“If it’s not effectively treated, it won’t go away.”

This is an evaluative claim because the author is providing judgement on the situation. This claim could be arguable and defendable.

“When Caleb checked into his VA inpatient therapy in 2010, more than two-thirds of his fellow patients were veterans of Vietnam.”

This is a factual claim, the claim could be proven to be true when further researched.

Vietnam vets still make up the bulk of Danna’s clients—though she is assisting traumatized men who served in World War II, in the early years of which half the medical disability discharges were psychiatric, and some of those men still show up at Danna’s office and cry, and cry, and cry.

“Many people at her fundraiser are saying that she saved their lives, kept them from killing themselves, kept them off the streets—or out of the woods, as it were, where she sometimes found vets living on earth floors under cardboard boxes.”

This is a categorical claim. The author is listing situations that “Danna” helped her clients overcome.

“I don’t just get to see the bad stuff,” Danna says. “I get to see the good stuff too.”

This is a comparative claim because Danna is comparing her experiences.

By way of example, she introduces me to Steve Holt and Charlene Payton Holt.

“Steve served in Vietnam, fought in the Tet Offensive.“

This is a factual claim because with further research this statement could prove to be true.

“The chaplain assured him that he shouldn’t feel bad about killing gooks, but the chaplain was paid by the Army, and who took moral advice from a chaplain carrying a .38?”

This is a moral claim because the author is putting judgment on how the chaplain behaved.

“Back at home, Steve drank wildly. He waged war with his wife, attempted to work odd jobs where he had as little contact with humans as possible. But then he got divorced, and then he got with Charlene in 2001, and then he got in a big fight with Charlene and pulled the rifles out and sent her fleeing into the night, through the woods to the closest neighbor’s house a mile away. But then he got inpatient psychiatric treatment in Seattle, several times, and found Jesus, and only ever has a beer or two, and now you have never seen two people so in love in any double-wide in the United States.”

This is an illustrative claim because the author is invoking sympathy within Steve story.

“I knew who he could be,” Charlene says.