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.
I think this can be an evaluative or causal claim. It explains that these doctors, the higher up, claim that if they were told to rest, it can cause the others to do the same. Which is also why I said it can be causal, if there were those that have to rest, others might fake it because of it.
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.
Above involves two claims; the first part is an analogy claim. The author is comparing the previous topics of brain damage and concussions to the NFL situations. The second part is a causal claim. The author is basically just saying “25 mph punches to the head cause brain damage.”
These days, there are MRIs in theater, assessments after blasts, mandatory rest periods after a concussion.
This is a factual claim. Short, but just saying that these show how concussions and other injuries are treated.
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 would be an evaluative claim. This uses the authority of researchers, who have shown trial and error.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
hollyp715
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
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.
I think this can be an evaluative or causal claim. It explains that these doctors, the higher up, claim that if they were told to rest, it can cause the others to do the same. Which is also why I said it can be causal, if there were those that have to rest, others might fake it because of it.
FEEDBACK. That’s perfectly good work, RushHour, but the job is hardly done. Our examination of claims is just beginning and will continue today in class. The list of common claims that we worked from in this exercise was not complete, of course, and could probably never be. There can always be another way to identify a claim that requires a new category. “Hovda says” for example, is attributive. It attributes a remark to another person. In this way, the author of the article indicates that she is not passing along her own opinion but someone else’s.
Hovda says
—Attributive claim. The author indicates she takes no responsibility for Hovda’s claim.
some of the Army’s best doctors
—Evaluative and Comparative claim, still Hovda’s claims. Hovda asserts that he knows who the good doctors are and can compare them to the not-so-good doctors to determine which are the comparatively best doctors.
implied
—Deeply Evaluative claim. Hovda asserts that he is capable of determining what the doctors would have said if they were being completely straightforward and transparent. They didn’t say “x,” but they implied “x” is his conclusion.
that if soldiers were told they needed rest after concussions
—Deeply Speculative claim. Hovda is setting up a conditional situation that the doctors he is citing may or may not have even mentioned in their conversations. Apparently nobody does tell soldiers they need to rest after concussions. Telling them would be both Causal and Proposal in nature. You NEED to rest after a concussion means a concussion RESULTS in a condition that can be alleviated by rest. Hovda is imagining what Causal and Proposal claims doctors might make to soldiers and how soldiers might react, another Causal claim, if in fact anybody did start saying so.
it was going to usher in an epidemic of fakers
—Yes Causal and deeply Speculative and Evaluative
Hovda is still imagining he knows what doctors would speculate about what soldiers would do and his Proposal evaluation is extremely Ethical. He claims that doctors would propose that soldiers would act unethically by falsely making Causal or Proposal claims of their own.
or retired guys claiming disability way after the fact.
—More of the same. Hovda extends his paranoiac delusions to include speculations about what doctors would think not only active soldiers but also retired soldiers might conclude, or fake, or claim.
Fun, isn’t it, RushHour? It’s hard to believe anybody can make a compelling case about anything when we examine how much uncertainty resides in what sound like fairly simple claims.
First, thank you for always taking the time to give me feedback for my work. Second, thank you for the compliment in the beginning, it is very appreciated. Lastly, I just think it is crazy how specific you can get with these claims, how it can be a sentence or two, with an overall claim. How it also can get very specific just picking out words and showing how they can be claims through your examples. Also, as you pointed out there can be so many different claims within a single sentence. Wouldn’t that make the sentence confusing? Unless it goes hand in hand.
Confusing? Not really. We take these claims for granted as we read and register them only subconsciously. Good authors manage to persuade us without knowing we’ve read and consented to countless claims. Suppose I say to you,
you might call that a claim. So would I. Overall, it’s a pretty powerful claim. But look how many claims it contains.
—You used to be thoughtful.
—But not thoughtful enough to be published.
—Now you’re more thoughtful.
—Thoughtful enough to be published.
—The work of non-thoughtful writers doesn’t get published.
—Being thoughtful somehow made your writing better.
—Better writing is the reason you got published.
—Your added thoughtfulness is the ONLY reason you’re now getting published.
We could tease out a few more, but you get the point.
Is the sentence confusing? No.
Does it contain a multitude of claims? Oh, yeah.