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: Older adults who underwent a brief course of brain exercises saw improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed that could be detected as long as 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever on cognitive training. The findings, published on Monday in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, offer welcome news in the search for ways to keep the mind sharp as 76 million baby boomers in the United States advance into old age. The federally sponsored trial of almost 3,000 older adults, called the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study, or ACTIVE, looked at how three brain training programs - focusing on processing speed, memory and reasoning ability - affected cognitively normal adults as they aged. People in the study had an average age of 74 when they started the training, which involved 10 to 12 sessions lasting 60 to 75 minutes each. After five years, researchers found, those with the training performed better than their untrained counterparts in all three measures. Although gains in memory seen at the study’s five-year mark appeared to drop off over the next five years, gains in reasoning ability and processing speed persisted 10 years after the training. “What we found was pretty astounding. Ten years after the training, there was evidence the effects were durable for the reasoning and the speed training,” said George Rebok, an expert on aging and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the study. Participants in all three training groups also reported that they had an easier time with daily activities such as managing their medications, cooking meals or handling their finances than did participants who did not get the training. But standard tests of these activities showed no differences between the groups. “The speed-of-processing results are very encouraging,” said study co-author Jonathan King, program director for cognitive aging in the Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the research. King said the self-reported improvements in daily function were interesting, but added, “We do not yet know whether they would truly allow older people to live independently longer.”  However, researchers said even a small gain would be likely to ease the burden on caregivers and healthcare providers. “If we delay the onset of difficulties in daily activities even by a small amount, that can have major public health implications in terms of helping to curb healthcare costs, delaying entry into institutions and hospitals,” Rebok said. The training course was designed to bolster specific cognitive abilities that begin to slip as people age. It does not aim to prevent dementia caused by underlying disease such as Alzheimer’s. At the start of the study, all 2,832 participants were cognitively normal. The study included four groups: three training groups plus a control group of volunteers who came in for regular testing to see how they were faring with age. People were trained in small groups over a period of several weeks and then were tested immediately after the training and again one, two, three, five and 10 years later. About 60 percent of the volunteers who underwent training also got booster training sessions, which enhanced the initial benefits. At the end of the trial, all groups showed declines compared with their initial baseline tests in memory, reasoning and processing speed, but those who got training in reasoning and processing speed experienced less decline. Among those given training in reasoning strategies, 73.6 percent were still performing above their pre-trial baseline level, compared with 61.7 percent of those who received no training and were only benefiting from practice on the test. The effect was even greater in processing speed. Among the training group, 70.7 percent of participants were performing at or above their baseline level, compared with 48.8 percent of those in the control group. There was no difference in memory performance between the memory group and the control group after 10 years. Two of the three training programs - the memory and the reasoning strategies - were done with paper and pencil, while the processing speed training was done on a computer. The programs, developed by the researchers, were focused largely on teaching strategies to improve cognitive performance. For example, the memory training taught people how to remember word lists, sequences and main ideas, while the reasoning training focused on things like recognizing number patterns. In the processing speed training, people were asked to focus on the main object in a computer screen while also trying to quickly recognize and identify objects on the periphery of the screen. Such training can help older drivers with things like recognizing road signs while driving. A version of the speed training program developed for this trial is now commercially available through the brain fitness company Posit Science, but the researchers are working on making other types of training available as well. Rebok’s team just got a grant from the National Institute on Aging to make a computerized version of the memory test, with the hope that repeated training can improve the results. The study was not designed to explain why cognitive training can have such a lasting effect. Rebok said it may be that people take the strategies they learn and practice them over time. As they age, trained individuals can rely on these strategies to compensate for their declines. Whether this training actually strengthened the brain in the way that exercising builds muscle is not clear, but the government intends to study this, too. Last week, NIA put out a request for proposals that would study whether cognitive training causes physical changes in the brain. Claim: Brain training helped older adults stay sharp for years: study.

A: A brief course of brain exercises helped older adults hold on to improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed for 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever done on cognitive training.
****
Q: Paragraph: He did not spell out why he expected no corresponding EU moves. But in a statement, his agency said a key finding in its latest annual report was a “marked rise in the potency and purity of Europe’s most commonly used illicit drugs, fuelling concerns for the health of users who, wittingly or unwittingly, may be consuming stronger products”. It also pointed out an increase in the numbers of cannabis-related health emergencies in Europe between 2008 and 2012. Gotz told a briefing arranged to present the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’s report: “In Europe I do not know any government, or parliamentary majority backing a government, that is currently seriously discussing cannabis legalization or regulation in a different way. “I don’t see a discussion coming up of the level as it is in the Americas,” he said in Lisbon, the agency’s headquarters. Portugal pioneered the decriminalization of all drug use in 2001 and some countries have followed suit, making possession of small quantities of drugs, especially marijuana, a misdemeanor rather than criminal offence. Germany allows seriously ill patients to grow, buy and consume their own cannabis under a special license, and medical marijuana is legal in the Czech Republic, but otherwise cultivation and use remain illegal in the EU. In the United States, 23 states and the District of Columbia allow medical marijuana, and voters in four states have gone further by approving the drug for recreational use by adults. But the drug remains illegal under federal law, which classifies pot as a dangerous narcotic with no current medical use. The EU drug monitoring agency said technical innovation and market competition have led to an increase in the potency of cannabis, the purity of cocaine and the MDMA-content in ecstasy tablets. It also flagged market changes such as detection of heroin processing laboratories in Europe and a greater diversification of trafficking routes and opioid products, which, combined with a substantial increase in opium production in Afghanistan, could reverse declines in heroin supply and stagnation of demand. Claim: EU drug agency sees no U.S.-like cannabis legalization moves.

A: European Union countries are unlikely to legalize marijuana any time soon as some parts of the United States have done recently, EU drug monitoring agency chief Wolfgang Gotz said on Thursday.
****
Q: Paragraph: "The company behind the product undoubtedly has done market research about how much of this product it might sell and at what price. At a minimum, that information should have been included here. It presents the benefits in both relative and absolute terms in the second paragraph of the story. It would be nice to have a NNT or number needed to treat in here. It also would be nice to see the range of performance after using the drug. Did some of the men on placebo have gains in ejaculation time that were unusually high? Did some on the drug have no gain or even a loss of time? It’s also not clear how the researchers knew what the ""no drug"" ejaculation time was, how they were chosen for the research or whether they fell into a particular age bracket. The story did a ""satisfactory"" job quantifying the benefits, not a perfect job. And in an imperfect world of health stories, this part of the story was actually above average. It talks about the potential side effects, but it limits that discussion to what the study found in a very small group of men. Are there long term effects from lidocaine exposure that have been found in other studies? Does the body build up resistance to lidocaine? This isn’t a short term problem that can be solved with a few weeks of therapy. It is usually a life long problem, and the story should be framed that way both in discussing the benefits and the harms. By using an outside expert to say in the third graph that the findings are ""clinically significant,"" the story makes it sound as if the case for this drug has already been made. Perhaps Tom Lue gave some context around this comment, but that context is not included. Instead, we are told that patients will be ""much happier."" If you have this problem, you are looking up the company’s website to get on their mailing list. But both groups experienced a gain in ejaculation time. Why would that be? And, given that these sexual encounters were self timed, how confident can we be in the results? Another thing that the story never addresses is the idea of optimal time for sex. It also treats this particular sexual dysfunction as a purely single male problem instead of a larger issue of an unsatisfying sexual relationship between a man and his partner. The drug was tested with two people having sex, but the person who did not receive the spray is never taken into account. The men ""rated their sexual experiences significantly higher"" than those who got placebos. The only reference to the partners is literally the second to the last sentence, ""Also, 0.6% of the men’s female partners reported at least some loss of sensation."" We don’t hear anything about the limitations of the study design. It appears to be a quasi-synthesis of 2 clinical trials. There isn’t any caution about the limited or nonexistent peer-review which takes place for an ""abstract"" at a meeting. Regarding study design, all we know is that researchers took 2 previous trials already made public (would have been helpful to include what the primary findings were) and ""combined them with added new data."" This study design is highly suspect. We do not know anything about whether the 2 trials were similar enough to combine, and in what manner they were combined. The section describing premature ejaculation does a better than average job attempting to define the scope of the problem while describing the limitations of the research that has been done in this area. One line could be a model for other journalists to learn from: ""Surveys have suggested that as many as 20% to 30% of men may suffer from premature ejaculation, though these figures are often drawn from broadly worded survey questions and may overstate the number of men with significant problems."" The reporter clearly read a lot about the problem and the potential treatments and does a fairly good job synthesizing this information. The story makes it clear that the two outside sources were not involved in this research. It is unclear whether these doctors are involved in any competing research or research into a similar product. There are three full graphs in a 12 graph story about the standard treatments and off-label treatments. I felt like I knew more about the state of premature ejaculation medicine after reading this story than I did about the actual success of these two trials. The story makes it clear, even in the headline, that these are the results of a trial and that there currently is no product even in the FDA pipeline. It also talks about a drug therapy from Johnson & Johnson and where it is being sold. It says at one point in the story that the ""findings of both trials had previously been made public."" It would have been nice to know where, how and why. Presumably at previous conferences, and, if so, why is this treatment not already in the FDA pipeline. Reporters should always be wary of scientists, especially corporate ones, who are using the trade show circuit to build momentum for their product instead of following a rigorous peer review process. This story really is all about the novelty, and it does a good job of exploring some of the other treatments available. Clearly, there is no published study. The company involved in the drug did issue this press release (http://www.renalandurologynews.com/novel-treatment-for-premature-ejaculation-shows-promising-results/article/171435/)There are some differences between the numbers used in the story and the numbers in the press release, but it’s not clear how much of this is because of different caveats. (The number of men who actually completed the study, for example, versus all of those who were involved.) The story goes well beyond the release and was finished before the press conference at the AUA meeting." Claim: Trial Help for Sex Problems

A:
"The one thing we didn’t like in the story was letting the independent urologist get away with his claim that the findings were ""clinically significant."" We liked the way one observer put it in an online comment posted after the WSJ online story:   ""I had to chuckle when reading about the ""clinically significant"" 5.5-fold increase. Although the men rated their experience significantly higher on measures of control and satisfaction, was this 5.5 increase from about 56 seconds to 3 mins.18 seconds sufficient to make their experience as a couple more meaningful and rewarding? Did the partners rate their experiences as improved? I would characterize this finding as ""less than perfect"" just as the urologist quoted referred to the alternative treatments. Perhaps the study can be improved by combining spray plus sex therapy for one experimental group, spray treatment alone for another group, and sex therapy alone for the third group. I also think that giving the couples a stop watch injects an artificial component that is likely to have its own sent of negative ramifications."" Sexual dysfunctions can be serious and life altering, and there is a steady parade of therapies being offered both through the standard scientific process and through outright hucksterism. It is important for reporters not to be blinded by the glare of sex therapy and to focus on the details the way they would with any other drug or treatment."
****