“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.”
- Trials, suggests they have done this test more than once to find different results.
- MDMA, found that using a drug helps patients be more comfortable talking about their experiences.
- casual claim: helps promote positive talk of the trama
“Some of the most interesting research involves beta-blockers, drugs that suppress the adrenaline response.”
- some is indicating that not all the research is interesting and involves the beta-blockers.
- some also indicates the amount of adrenaline responses it suppresses.
- categorical claim: telling us it suppresses adrenaline responses.
“In one small study, trauma victims given beta-blockers within six hours of the incident had a 40 percent less likelihood of developing PTSD. ”
- small study indicates they have only minorly tested these facts.
- within is indicating they have only tested in within that time frame, but what about after the six hours?
- 40 precent less likelihood gives us evidence of this claim.
“patients take beta-blockers while talking about trauma so their reactions are weakened and then presumably lessened the next time it comes up, so far with promising results.”
- taking beta-blockers while talking about trama is claimed tp weaken reactions
- also being claimed that it is lessoned the next time it comes up
- so far is indicating that there hasn’t been problems yet but the more they test this the more different their results could be
“Researchers posit that TBI can make the brain more vulnerable to PTSD, or that it can exacerbate its symptoms of exhaustion, agitation, confusion, headaches.”
- can indicates that it is a possibility but it isn’t certain or proven
- this claim is categorical, it states different symptoms
One thought on “E03: Critical Reading– Splash305”
You’ve done a fine job of identifying a variety of claims here, Splash. I’m impressed too that you’ve taken a stab at identifying the types of claims made (“This one is categorical,” for example).
I found myself agreeing with your observations most of the time. Let’s do an experiment. I’ll analyze one of the sentences you also critiqued and see how close our responses are:
—“one small study” is the author’s way to minimize the conclusiveness of this research so far. It means “This is far from proven, but shows promise.”
—“trauma victims given beta-blockers within six hours of the incident” means somebody had to decide what qualified as a trauma, identify the “victims” of the trauma, and be present with a dose of beta-blockers shortly after. It also means the experimenter had to withhold the beta-blockers from a control group of trauma victims. And finally, it means the experimenter had to conduct interviews with the victims months or years after the trauma to determine which of them was suffering PTSD. All of that suggests this was a controlled experiment, that the trauma was perhaps manufactured to provide data. It’s a weird claim.
—“had a 40 percent less likelihood of developing PTSD” means a doctor of clinician had to diagnose PTSD in a large enough sample of trauma victims to provide significant statistics. It also raises the question of whether the traumas were similar enough or whether they happened to victims who were similar enough to provide meaningful data at all.
It’s exhausting being a critical reader, isn’t it? 🙂