Types of claims discussed 

Definition –  claims that are explicitly stating what something is 

Analogy claim – when something is being compared ( similar to ) ( like)

Categorical claim – putting something in a category such as putting PTSD as a certain kind of illness, anything to do with what kind something is 

Factual – when something is without a doubt 

Evaluation- claims that involve judgment, are arguable 

Ethical or moral claim –  proclaiming how something should be , a social situation, saying something someone deserves something in relation to social situation

Numerical – involving a number or a value 

Comparative claim – involves comparing two or more things not in an analogy, using the words best and worst 

Casual claim –  cause and effect, consequences, basically predictions

Recommendation or proposal- less serious or not related to the social situation of ethics or morals

OBSERVATIONS

“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.”

• I believe this could be a category claim because the experiment is likely among many PTSD-related experiments attempting to reverse traumatic damage to the brain. As the podcast continues to go on mentioning similar experiments these are all in the same “ category” of experiments. Although it doesn’t specifically list anything I feel as though a list could develop that isn’t mentioned, only one part of the list is mentioned. Therefore I still see it as a “version” of a categorical claim.
• This could also be used as a definition claim not that it is defining the word but defining the grounds of the experiment, what it entails, includes, etc. I’m not sure if this definition should only be according to words or concepts but if it applies to concepts then I believe this is a prime example.
• One could also argue this is an evaluation claim because the author is evaluating this as a “trial” while someone else could say it was an experiment, observation, or some other similar or not similar subcategory of a trial. Much of this short section describes experiments, data, and conclusions therefore as you will see many evaluation-based claims were found in my observation.

“Animal trials where rats are lightly tortured and then injected with a protein that will stop the enzymes in their brains from being able to form memories of it.”

• I immediately noticed in this segment the use of “light” in regards to torture, which calls into question the moral and ethical standards of the author. This could be a claim in the sense that it shows that the author doesnt see animal torture unethical unless it is performed on a high degree. In that one word the author is either subconsciously or maybe even consciously making a claim about his level of ethical or moral standards 
• This could also be seen as a comparative claim because it is comparing light torture to intense torture. 

“Some of the most interesting research involves beta-blockers, drugs that suppress the adrenaline response.” 

•  Given that this claim is highly opinionated in nature it could be argued it is an evaluation claim. 
• This claim could also be viewed as a comparative  claim because the author is trying to categorize said research into the “best” category 

“In one small study, trauma victims given beta-blockers within six hours of the incident had a 40 percent less likelihood of developing PTSD.”

• – This is a factual claim because the date derived from a proven experiment. It can also be noted that the data is very specific including percentages and time therefore it is stating what specifically happens to how many people at what time in a very factual sense. 

“Brunet runs trials where patients take beta-blockers while talking about trauma.”

• – Yet again it is evident that this is either a factual claim or definition claim depending on how you view it 
• – It can be factual because it is describing exactly what was done and that can’t be disputed 
• – It can be definition based because the author is describing the terms of an experiment, so if defnition claims go beyond just defining words this can be seen as a definition claim

“so their reactions are weakened and then presumably lessened the next time it comes up, so far with promising results.”

• – There are 2 evaluation based claims in this segment 
• – The first component that there reactions were weakened could be interpreted in a different way therefore this can be evaluations claim 
• – The second component that qualifies as an evaluative claim is that the results were “promising” one night not think this about the results therefore this is up for debate 
• – Another claim evident in the passage is comparative because it is comparing both weakened reactions to larger reactions 
• – There is also a numerical claim in this segment in the use of the word “ lessened”

“But as of yet, “pharmacologically, there’s no magic bullet,” he says.” 

– The first claim that is evident is a definition claim in that by using the technicalities of a pharmacology approach he is implying the definition of pharmacological as something related to concrete, scientific etc

– By using the word “magic bullet” not literally but metaphorically is an analogy claim in action.  

And “we’re much less effective at treating more complex PTSD” with traditional therapy. 

– This is a evaulational claim because someone could argue that they are effective

• – By saying less this is also a form of comparative claim. In highlighting what is less effective than we are able to see the difference between more and less effective.

-By incorporating the word “traditional” this is a categorical claim because it is placing a type of therapy as traditional 

“Treatment offered to vets might be less effective than what’s offered to civilians with trauma.”

• Similar to numerous other statements in this segment of the podcast there are evaluational, comparative.
• – this is a evaluation claim because the author makes it a note to say “ might” meaning one could argue that this wasn’t the case 
• – This is also a comparative claim in the word “less” because it is comparing effectiveness on a range of it occurring more or less
• – Contrary to other segments I began to notice the incorporation of a causal claim in that it showed a cause and effect relationship. 
• – By saying that animals were less effective in treatment and humans were more, this is demonstrating that because humans took the treatment or had it they saw more effectiveness than the ones used on animals. 

“With veterans, there are important concomitant issues.”

– First claim I saw in this was at the end of the segment where it describes that type of issues the veterans are having as “concomitant” this is a categorical claim

– As I thought harder about the segment I also noticed the possible emergence  of proposal or recommendation claims because in this segment there are important issues with veterans in particular that should be considered because of their trauma 

“Like traumatic brain injury”

– This is a categorical claim in two ways, the first because it is stated that traumatic brain injury is in the category of particularities about veterans that should be considered . The second reason this is categorical is because they are putting this type of brain injury in the category of traumatic

– This is also draws to the previous ethical and moral claim because it is claiming that this is something that should be considered by veterans 

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

– First claim in this segment is evaluation claim because they are making an assumption that can be argued since it isn’t fact through the word ( posit) 

– Next claim in this segment is comparative because the word more implies there is both those more vulnerable to PTSD and those less vulnerable to the mental illness

– The last claim is a categorical claim because the quotation mentions symptoms of exhaustion and what they could include ( agitation, confusion, headaches) 

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

– This is an evaluation claim because the author is uncertain that they are positive about something which can be argued for or against by another party 

– In saying the word “harder” this can also been seen as a comparative claim given that treatment can be easier or harder to achieve

James Peterson’s post-injection chill-out wore off after a month

– This is a numerical claim because of the word month, which indicates time and amount of time. They are claiming that a month amount of time passed 

– There is also a  factual claim because this is evidence and data and since it was proved in experimentation it is fact. 

“faster than it does for other patients—maybe because of his TBI. Maybe not. Either way, as for TBI, well, “there is no cure,”

– Through his utilization of maybe and maybe not this is evaluation because the basis can be argued upon and is the judgment of the author or the work he is referencing.

– At the same time there is an attempted factual claim, the author implies that it is indisputable to his source that there is no cure. Although this isn’t very effective he is claiming that whatever the case may be the fact remains that there is no cure for PTSD.  

“says David Hovda, director of UCLA’s Brain Injury Research Center and an adviser to the Department of Defense.”

• – This might not seem like a claim but I think I see a factual claim. Incorporated is the author’s position and department in which he holds currently which is definitive and can’t be disputed.