TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements

SOLUTION: In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higher levels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then segued immediately into an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates “are not supported by the available evidence.” The key problem, as the story points out, is that these claims are based almost exclusively on observational studies that can’t prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven’t accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay the possibility that higher doses of vitamin D and calcium might cause harm–a stance which the story notes may not be justified. We applaud this story’s effort to show readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D is the latest in a long line of “miracle” nutrients that people have turned to in the hope of improving their health. As we’ve learned from copious previous experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised and can sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn’t necessarily better when it comes to vitamin D–or most other health care interventions for that matter.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "As he asked Philadelphia City Council to consider a $300 million investment in the city’s parks and recreation centers, Mayor Jim Kenney told a success story. During his budget address in council chambers last week, the first-year mayor said that when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, ""crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" That seemed like a huge drop in a high-crime area of the city, so we decided to check out the claim. The Kenney administration said it got the statistic from a Dickinson College study conducted in conjunction with Philadelphia Police and the Fairmount Park Conservancy, a nonprofit that leads capital projects and programming across 10,200 acres of Fairmount Park and 100 neighborhood parks throughout the city. Meg Holscher, the Conservancy’s senior director of development, said the 87-acre Hunting Park in North Philadelphia was identified in 2008 as an area of development because of how close it was to a high number of families. At the time, prostitution and drug trade were common in and around the park. After community meetings and input from neighbors, the Conservancy -- along with the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation -- presented a master plan for the park in October 2009 that outlined two new playgrounds, a community garden and farmers market, new tennis courts and youth tennis programming, as well as a renovated football and soccer field. One of the most visible changes, though, was 64 lights placed around the park, which Holscher said residents wanted to curb illegal activity and violence. ""This project for us was a little bit of a game changer,"" she said. ""We’ve started to look at parks and how they are tied to healthy eating, healthy living and violence prevention."" Holscher said the $4.5 million Hunting Park capital projects and programming was funded through both public and private funds. In addition to that, another $500,000 was added through grants and corporate donations, bringing the total amount for phase one of the revitalization to some $5 million. After efforts to spruce up the park started in 2010, Conservancy staff started hearing from community members that it seemed like crime in the area had slowed, but an analysis wasn’t completed until 2014. That year, Amanda Vandenburg, then a researcher at Dickinson College in Carlisle, was interested in how parks influence communities. Vandenburg said she analyzed public data from the Philadelphia Police Department and charted crime statistics from 2006, before the revitalization efforts began, through 2013, when the first phase of the project had wrapped up. The data included both part I crimes (violent crimes like homicide, rape and aggravated assault) and part II crimes (like simple assault, prostitution, drug possession and other non-violent offenses.) She mapped instances of crime from inside and a half-mile buffer around the park, and found that there was a spike in crime between 2006 and 2007. After that point, crime began decreasing in 2008 citywide as police enforcement efforts in Philadelphia changed under a new mayoral administration. But crime continued to go down near Hunting Park. Between 2009 and 2013, ""there was an 89 percent drop in the number of crimes,"" according to Vandenburg’s study. Rape and theft from vehicle crime incidents increased over that time period, but other crimes decreased, including prostitution and drug use. Vandenburg also conducted a ""hot spot"" analysis that showed areas predicted to have the highest amounts of crime were closer to and in the park in 2009 and moved away from the park by 2013. While she said the revitalization of Hunting Park can’t be attributed as the only reason for a decrease in crime in the immediate area, the data does support the theory that illegal activity in the area decreased as the park was improved. Our Ruling Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim ." Claim: When the City and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years.

SOLUTION: "Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim True."

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "State Rep. Dean Kaufert said he was after things like soda and nachos when he proposed to limit how much junk food Wisconsinites could buy with food stamps. ""Hopefully, people’s health will get better,"" the Neenah Republican said in March 2013. But when the former potato chip salesman’s bill came up May 7, 2013, for a vote, there were signs of indigestion on the Assembly floor in Madison. ""The list of foods that you'd be restricted from buying under this is -- I don't know who came up with it. I think it's kind of shocking,"" complained Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo. Clark continued by saying ""we're going to prevent -- or limit -- the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for a long list of foods -- including organic foods. Sure, sugary drinks and melty cheese might sometimes addle our brains. But organic foods are supposed to be better for you, right? So, is Clark correct -- would the junk food bill, approved by the Assembly minutes after his comments, prevent or limit the use of food stamps for organic foods? The program The food stamps program, known formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal funds pay for all of the benefits, although the states share the administrative costs with Uncle Sam. Food stamps -- actually, it’s a plastic card you can swipe electronically at the store -- are available to working and non-working people who have a low income. The benefits can generally be used to buy any food or food product, but hot foods cooked in the store, as well as alcoholic beverages, tobacco and pet food, are prohibited. In Wisconsin, the program is called FoodShare. It serves more than 850,000 adults and children, or 15 percent of the state’s residents, at a cost of more than $1 billion per year. Junk-food bill To take effect, Kaufert’s bill would need approval not only from the state Senate and Gov. Scott Walker but also the federal government. That's unlikely (for Wisconsin and South Carolina, which is considering a similar measure), Governing magazine suggests, given the USDA has denied every request like Kaufert’s that's been submitted for a federal ""waiver."" But let’s get the bill out on the table, anyway. Kaufert’s measure does not define junk food; rather, it would require FoodShare recipients to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on a list of foods deemed by the state as healthy. The healthy foods list would have two components. It begins with a roster of foods approved by another federal-state food program -- Women, Infants and Children (WIC); then the bill adds some other food types, as well. So, where does that leave organic foods? Well, since the bill wouldn’t make any changes for one-third of a FoodShare recipient’s benefits, they could be used to buy anything from Funyuns to organic specialty onions. A recipient wouldn’t be prevented from spending all of the one-third on organic foods. But for the two-thirds portion of a person’s FoodShare benefits, there would be limits. The bill explicitly says fresh produce, including white potatoes, as well as beef, pork, chicken, and fish, would be on the healthy foods list. So, using the two-thirds to buy organic versions of those foods would be OK, unless the state at some point specifically prohibited them, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. On the other hand, WIC benefits can’t be used for organic versions of some foods -- such as milk, cereal, bread and canned or dried peas, beans and lentils. (The government wants to encourage cheaper alternatives to stretch the money beneficiaries receive, according to the state Department of Health Services). Likewise, that means a person on FoodShare couldn’t use the two-thirds portion of their benefits toward those organics, if Kaufert's bill takes effect. Got it? FoodShare recipients could still use one-third of their benefits on any kind of organic food (or junk food, for that matter). But they could use the two-thirds portion only for some kinds of organics. Our rating Clark said a bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also ""prevent -- or limit --  the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for organic foods. There would be limits on which types of organic foods a person could buy with two-thirds of their food stamps, but not for the other third. The meat-and-potatoes portion of Clark's statement is accurate, but it needs a garnish or two of clarification -- our definition of ." Claim: "A Wisconsin bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also ""prevent -- or limit --  the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for organic foods."

SOLUTION:
"Clark said a bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also ""prevent -- or limit --  the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for organic foods. There would be limits on which types of organic foods a person could buy with two-thirds of their food stamps, but not for the other third. The meat-and-potatoes portion of Clark's statement is accurate, but it needs a garnish or two of clarification."