Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: "The story does not discuss the costs of annual mammography screening, or even provide a range of costs. The story does not discuss any health care policy cost repercussions of breast cancer screening recommendations. The story does not discuss the cost of unnecessary biopsies or other treatments for women who have a false positive diagnosis via mammography (greater in women 40-49). The story highlights the 26 percent difference in breast cancer death rates, but fails to include any information about the overall risk. The researchers reported that based on their results you would have to screen 1252 women for a decade in order to prevent one breast cancer death. In other words, for the remaining 1251 women, a decade of mammograms did not alter their breast cancer mortality. Although this story does not go into detail about the potential harms of screening mammography, it does include comments from independent experts who point out that the scans do lead to the diagnosis and treatment of women whose tumors would never have become life-threatening. This story briefly explains key features of this study. It also includes critiques from independent experts who note limitations of the study design and analysis – although the statement that the researchers ""did not compare the broader breast cancer death rates"" in the counties"" is unclear. Overall, there is much more the Times could have done to analyze methodological questions surrounding the Swedish study. (For example, read our blog on this matter.) Interviews with Peter Gotzsche and with Donald Berry saved the story. But so much more could have been done – another reason why more than 471 words should have been devoted to the reporting. The story does not discuss the prevalence of breast cancer among women in their 40s. That omission would not usually be considered disease mongering, but since surveys indicate most people overestimate the risk of breast cancer among women in their 40s, failing to mention the actual rates leaves those misconceptions intact. The story does include comments from experts who raise concerns about overdiagnosis; that is, the number of breast tumors discovered that are not actually life-threatening. A strong point of this story is the inclusion of comments from several independent experts with a variety of perspectives on the meaning of the latest study results. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, but the researchers did not list any in their journal article. Although not discussed in detail, the story does mention that the United States Preventive Services Task Force has questioned the value of screening mammograms for women younger than 50, thus implying that not being screened is an option to consider. The availability of mammography was not explicitly addressed, but we can’t criticize the story for that. Instead, we give a Not Applicable score for this criterion. This story could have done a better job explaining how this study – and its methods – are different from earlier research on the topic.But two things lead us to give it a barely satisfactory score. First, there was a brief attempt to mention the unique ""circumstances"" of the Swedish study. Second, the story also pointed out that there’s a historical ideological pattern in the study authors’ work – noting that they ""have long been advocates of mammography screening."" It’s clear that the story was not based on a news release." Claim: Mammogram Benefit Seen for Women in Their 40s

A: This story includes strong comments from independent experts that can help readers get a broader understanding of the results of a study that compared breast cancer death rates among women in their 40s who lived in areas of Sweden that did or did not offer routine mammography. However, because the story reports only the percentage difference in death rates, without including absolute numbers or the number of women who need to be screened to prevent one death, readers may get the impression that the effect of mammography was larger than what the researchers actually reported. People commonly overestimate the risk of breast cancer death among women in their 40s. By not including any information about the absolute numbers of deaths among women in this study or in the population at large, the story misses an opportunity to correct common misconceptions.
****
Q: Paragraph: The black rhinos died of salt poisoning following the decision by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to ignore water test results in Tsavo East National Park, the committee’s report said. The deaths of the endangered animals, being moved to a more secure home in the face of the threat from poachers, were a major embarrassment to Kenya, which sells itself as destination for wildlife tourism. The inquiry said WWF, which donated $1 million for the relocation in June 2018, applied pressure on KWS to speed up the process in a bid to generate positive publicity and secure funding for itself from Germany. WWF denied the allegations in the inquiry report, which was made public last week, saying KWS had carried out hydrological surveys and given assurances the park was safe and suitable. “At no point either before or during the translocations were any issues raised about the quality of the water on the site,”  WWF said by email. “We would never push for a translocation to go ahead against the recommendations of the relevant experts. This was a tragedy we hope will never be repeated.”  The parliamentary committee’s inquiry said the relocation took place during a period in 2018 when the term of one KWS board had ended and before a new one had begun, creating a lack of oversight. The report said KWS’s former board of trustees had rejected the relocation three times in part because of the high salinity levels of the drinking water in the park. The report said Najib Balala, the minister of tourism and wildlife, should take overall responsibility for the rhinos’ deaths because he delayed the appointment of the new KWS board. The minister’s spokesman declined to comment. The KWS could not be immediately reached to comment. However, Richard Leakey, former chairperson of KWS, told the inquiry: “WWF-Kenya, as the funding entity, was alleged to have had a major interference on the board resolution against the translocation, and consequently pushed for the exercise after the exit of the board.”  WWF said it was saddened by the loss of the rhinos and it fully recognized the “serious failings of this operation”. “In response, we have strengthened existing practices and implemented brand new organizational guidelines to mitigate future risk as far as possible.”  Kenya had a rhino population of 1,258 in 2017 of which 745 were black rhinos, 510 were southern white rhinos and three were northern white rhinos, having grown from less than 400 rhinos in the 1980s. Poaching has risen in recent years across sub-Saharan Africa where well-armed criminal gangs have killed elephants for tusks and rhinos for horns. Often the animal parts are shipped to Asia for use in ornaments and medicines. Claim: WWF says it did not push for rhino relocation process where 11 died.

A: The World Wildlife Fund has rejected the findings of a Kenyan parliamentary inquiry that said the conservation group pushed Kenyan authorities to speed up a botched relocation of 14 rhinos last year that led to the deaths of 11 animals.
****
Q: Paragraph: "Costs were not discussed but this drug is still in development. The story reported the benefit (increased time spent sleeping compared with a placebo) as ‘significant’, though the only statistically significant result contained in the company presentation about this product was something termed ""increased sleep efficiency"". Although the data on total sleep time was greater for those taking the 200 and 400 milligram dose of this drug than placebo, it is not clear from the way the information was presented that it represented a statistically significant increase. The story mentioned that ‘few side effects were reported’. While it is true that ‘few’ is a subjective term, it would have been useful for readers to know that ~13% of those taking the 200 milligram dose experienced side effects; further – in order to have some idea about how to value the side effects, it would have been helpful to list that the side effects included fatigue, dry mouth, headache, and drowsiness. The story reports on a randomized clincial trial, states that it was performed by the drug company, gives the number treated and the main result. It is worth noting that the data on the main result differs from the information available at the company website. The results presented in the story: ""people taking a 200 milligram dose of almorexant slept 59 minutes longer than those on placebo"";  the increased sleep efficiency reported on the website for those taking the 200 milligram dose was 31.4 minutes. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story did not appear to make use of any independent sources of information regarding the clinical efficacy of this drug. While the story mentioned one other category of drug used in the treatment of insomnia, it did not mention that a range of treatment options exist including lifestyle changes that may be of benefit. While the story did not explicitly state that this drug is not yet available, the first sentence makes it quite clear this drug is still in development and in the process of undergoing clincial trials. This story appropriately reported that the drug described was a new drug with a novel mechanism. The story is about what appears to be a corporate-sponsored presentation at the World Sleep Congress. While this is not technically a news release, readers should know that it is somewhat comparable. Until more work is done and peer-reviewed, they may not be getting the entire picture. See our primer on some of the pitfalls of reporting news from scientific meetings." Claim: Actelion Sleep Aid Does Well In Midstage Clinical Trial

A:
This is a short story about a possible new drug treatment for insomnia. The most helpful information in the story is that the drug has a novel mechanism, and is currently being tested. While of interest, the story failed to provide sufficient information for readers because it is lacking in independent expert opinions about the value (to patients) of the new drug, discussion of potential harms, as well as failure to mention behavioral treatment for insomnia. The details about the benefit from the use of this drug come from a single small study of selected individuals and the information is derived from company sources. (See our primer on some of the pitfalls of reporting news from scientific meetings.) Having some individuals knowledgable about the problem of insomnia comment about the some of the strengths and weakness of this potential medication would have greatly improved this story.
****