Section 5- 1 hour

“Secondary traumatic stress has been documented in the spouses of veterans with PTSD from Vietnam. And the spouses of Israeli veterans with PTSD, and Dutch veterans with PTSD”

This is a factual claim that is stating as a fact that secondary traumatic stress has been recorded in the spouses of veterans for almost 90 years, long before PTSD was officially classified as a mental disorder and began to be diagnosed.

“In one study, the incidence of secondary trauma in wives of Croatian war vets with PTSD was 30 percent. In another study there, it was 39 percent”

This is an attributive claim as well as a numerical claim. The attributive claim part comes into play with the phrasing “In one study” and “In another study”; however, this is baseless in terms of being an attributive claim as it simple states that one study says this and another study says this without listing or naming exactly what the study was, or where the study was from. The fact that these studies are nameless negates any weight and credibility that comes with naming a specific study. As far as the numerical claim, this does a fine job at listing what exactly the numerical value is, as well as what the numbers mean. Overall, this claim is fine, but it needs to be strengthened by naming the studies’ sources so that the studies can hold some credibility.

“‘Trauma is really not something that  happens to an individual,’ says Robert Motta, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at Hofstra University who wrote a few of the many medical-journal articles about secondary trauma in Vietnam vets’ families. ‘Trauma is a contagious disease; it affects everyone that has close contact with a traumatized person’ in some form or another, to varying degrees and for different lengths of time”

This segment has a factual claim, an attributive claim, a credibility claim, a categorical claim, an analogy claim, and an evaluative claim. The factual claim is that trauma is something that affects everyone who comes into contact with someone who has been traumatized for some period of time. This claim is strengthened by the use of an attributive claim, which lists the author of the claim to be Robert Motta. To further add weight to who the author of this claim is, a credibility claim is used by saying exactly what Robert Motta’s qualifications are to be making such claims as though they are to be believed as facts. These qualifications being a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at Hofstra University as well as being someone who was written medical journal articles on this very subject, though specifically on the affects that secondary trauma has had on Vietnam vets’ families. The categorical claim is that trauma is a contagious disease that can even affect those who are simply in contact with those who have experienced trauma. The analogy claim is making a metaphor of sorts by saying that trauma is a contagious disease. Finally, the evaluative claim is that trauma can be characterized as a contagious disease, meaning that it can spread from one person to another through contact. I am not entirely sure if the “contagious disease” part is categorical, analogy, evaluative, or a combination of them, but this is my best interpretation of what it could be saying.

 “‘Everyone’ includes children. Which is something Brannan and Caleb lose not a little sleep over, since they’ve got a six-year-old in the house”

This includes a definition claim or categorical claim, a causal claim, and a factual claim. The definition claim is that when using the phrasing “everyone”, children fall within this definition. This is a slight definition claim, meaning that it only adds a specific group to the definition as a way to ensure the reading knows that this group is also included, perhaps as a way to emphasize the importance that this addition may have. The categorical claim is that children are categorized with the “everyone” mentioned. The causal claim is that Brannan and Caleb lose sleep worrying as a result of the fact that they have a six-year-old daughter that is exposed to the effects of PTSD. The factual claim is that Caleb and Brannan lose sleep over the fact that their child can be affected by the exposure to PTSD, especially at a young age.

“Katie Vines, the first time I meet her, is in trouble. Not that you’d know it to look at her, bounding up to the car, blondish bob flying as she sprints from her kindergarten class, nice round face like her daddy’s”

This section includes a factual claim, an evaluative claim, and an illustrative claim. The factual claim is that Katie Vines is in trouble in regards to her exposure to PTSD and having to experience secondary trauma. The evaluative claim is that you would not be able to tell that she is experiencing secondary trauma based on her outward appearance and disposition. This highlights the idea that the effects of PTSD are much more mental than they are physical, which is why it took so long for medical professionals to be able to diagnose it, and why they struggle to diagnose it still. The illustrative claim is describing the way that she looks and the fact that she is “bounding” up to the car and mentioning her “round face”, which typically signifies a non-threatening appearance as opposed to a sharper, more defined face. This invokes a sense of innocence in the reader before shifting the focus to the negative impact that secondary trauma has had on her behavior around others.