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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Grown in-vitro from cattle stem cells at a cost of 250,000 euros ($332,000), the burger was cooked and eaten in front of television cameras to gain the greatest media coverage for the culmination of a five-year science experiment. Resembling a standard circular-shaped red meat patty, it was created by knitting together 20,000 strands of laboratory-grown protein, combined with other ingredients normally used in burgers, such as salt, breadcrumbs and egg powder. Red beet juice and saffron were added to give it colour. The two food tasters were reserved in their judgement, perhaps keen not to offend their host at the London event, noting the burger’s “absence of fat”. Pressed for a more detailed description of the flavour, food writer Josh Schonwald said the cultured beef had an “animal protein cake” like quality to it, adding that he would like to try it with some of the extras often served with traditional burgers - salt, pepper, ketchup and jalepenos. Even the scientist behind the burger’s creation, vascular biologist Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, was relatively muted in his praise of its flavour. “It’s a very good start,” he told the hundreds of reporters who had gathered to watch the meat being cooked and served. The Dutch scientist’s aim was to show the world that in the future meat will not necessarily have to come from the environmentally and economically costly rearing and slaughtering of millions of animals. “Current meat production is at its maximum - we need to come up with an alternative,” he said. The World Health Organization (WHO) says meat production is projected to rise to 376 million tonnes by 2030 from 218 million tonnes annually in 1997-1999, and demand from a growing world population is expected to rise beyond that. According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), industrialised agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a proportion expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries such as China and India eat more meat, the report said. Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, who was not involved in the research, said it was “great pioneering science” with the potential to ease environmental, health and animal welfare problems. But, he added: “whilst the science looks achievable, the scalable manufacturing will require new game-changing innovation”. Post said he was confident his concept can be scaled up to offer a viable alternative to animal meat production, but said it may be another 20 years before lab-grown meat appears on supermarket shelves. He also conceded that the flavour of his meat must be improved if it is to become a popular choice. Post resisted requests from journalists from all over the world eager to try a morsel of the world’s first cultured beef burger, saying there was not enough to go around. Instead, he said, his children would be offered the leftovers. ($1 = 0.7528 euros) Claim: First taste of test-tube burger declared 'close to meat'.

Output: The world’s first laboratory-grown beef burger was flipped out of a petri dish and into a frying pan on Monday, with food tasters declaring it tasted “close to meat”.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating “watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer” by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer

Output: As with the NPR and AP stories we also reviewed, this story helped frame this issue in the first few lines rather than burying it at the end as so often is the case. To have an expert not involved in study quoted in the second paragraph saying “findings are not likely to be practice-changing” provides readers with balanced perspective right from the start. It was also good that the story concluded with a quote that expanded on what it means to “individualize” treatment. Unlike the concluding quote in the NPR story, this one provided language suggestive of shared decision making by adding ‘in relation to the risk stratification of disease, PATIENT DESIRES, health status, and RISK TOLERANCE”. (emphasis added)  Good way to end the story. Decisions about what, if anything, to do when facing a diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer is difficult and this story provided readers with useful information to consider.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: In June 2016, popular posts on social media claimed that “sea lice” had invaded beaches in Florida. As the term “sea lice” is not widespread, especially among social media users residing in the northern states, these messages were viewed with skepticism. However, these posts stemmed from genuine news articles: Purple flags are popping up all over the Florida panhandle as a nearly-invisible nuisance is causing a headache for beach-goers. Sea lice, also known as beach lice, have been confirmed in South Walton and Santa Rosa Beaches, and they may be moving west towards Alabama. Sea lice are virtually impossible to see underwater, making them difficult to track. They are known to get stuck underneath bathing suits and irritate the skin, causing a rash known as seabather’s eruption. The claim that these creatures have “invaded” the United States’ southern shores is something of an exaggeration, and may have led some to believe that this is a new phenomenon. Actually, the term “sea lice” has been used since at least the 1950s, although researchers preferred the term “seabather’s eruption” as there is an unrelated marine parasite known as a “sea louse”: The term “sea lice” apparently originated during the 1950s and was used by local U.S. residents in describing the condition. This popular term persisted, despite efforts by scientists to discourage use of such an inappropriate designation. Sea lice are actually small parasites that affect fish. While the term “sea lice” can refer to the larval form of several stinging marine creatures, seabather’s eruption is commonly caused by thimble jellyfish larvae: Seabather’s eruption is a rash that occurs when a swimmer is stung by marine life larvae. The condition has many names, including sealice, pika-pika, sea poisoning, sea critters, and ocean itch. Two types of marine life that generally cause this rash are: Thimble jellyfish (Linuche unguiculata). These are found seasonally in the water off the Florida coast and across the Caribbean. The jellyfish breed in the Caribbean throughout the summer, peaking in May. The larvae are barely visible, appearing like a speck of finely ground pepper. Claim: "Florida beaches have been invaded with ""sea lice."


Output: Sea anemone larvae (and other larval cnidarians) also possess nematocysts that may cause seabather’s eruption.