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: "There was no discussion of costs of vegetable consumption. Although this could be considered general knowledge, mention of typical costs for vegetables would have been a nice addition. The research on which this story was based compared increasing amounts of vegetable (or fruit and vegetable, or fruit) intake with intake of 0 – 1.1 servings per day. The study actually only found a statistically significant improvement in the rate of decline for individuals eating 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with “more than two servings of vegetables per day"" – which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing 5 years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline   It would have been helpful to provide some idea of the difference this actually represents. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. This story was not actually about a treatment per se but rather about the possible association between an eating pattern and age-related decline in function. This story reported on a prospective study of cognitive decline in older individuals. Although it did not explicitly mention the nature of the study design, the story included the caveat that the findings don’t prove that vegetables reduce mental decline, but add to mounting evidence pointing in that direction. The story would have been stronger if it had included information on the methodology for assessing dietary intake. No obvious elements of disease-mongering The story used several different sources. This story did not discuss other means to delay or diminish the rate of cognitive decline with age. This story reported on a study of vegetable and fruit consumption in older adults in the Chicago area – vegetables and fruits that are clearly widely available. The story begins, ""New research on vegetables and aging gives mothers another reason to say 'I told you so.' ""  Clearly, this is not a new idea, but the story is about new evidence. Because the story used multiple sources, it does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release." Claim: Study: Vegetables may keep brains young

A: This story presented the results from a recent study which found a slower decline in mental sharpness in older people who ate 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day than in people who ate 0 – 1.1 servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with “more than two servings of vegetables per day” – which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing five years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline. It would have been more helpful to frame for the reader the amount of mental decline typically seen in the age group studied, what the decline represents in terms of function, and the amount of potential for benefit to be gained through increased vegetable consumption. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. It was useful that the story pointed out that the research found an association between vegetable intake but not for fruit intake. Although the standard wisdom is to eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, this story provides a distinction between these two for readers to consider. It would have been useful for the story to provide a little more clarity about the definition of ‘vegetable’ for the reader. This study was interesting in that, unlike the USDA, it did not include potatoes in its vegetable count. In addition, it should be pointed out that whereas the FDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends the equivalent of four to 13 servings a day of vegetables and fruit in a typical 2,000 calorie diet, the benefit in this study was seen at a much lower level –  2.5 servings/day of vegetable consumption.
****
Q: Paragraph: We’ll rule this not applicable because, in general, most people have ballpark knowledge of how much chocolate costs. The story did not mention that dark chocolate is typically more expensive than milk chocolate — especially for the premium brands with very high concentrations of cocoa solids. A brief explanation would have been helpful. The story went the extra mile here, providing the absolute rates of stroke seen in the groups consuming the lowest and highest quantities of chocolate. “Among those with the highest weekly chocolate intake — more than 45 grams — there were 2.5 strokes per 1,000 women per year. That figure was 7.8 per 1,000 among women who ate the least (less than 8.9 grams per week).” These statistics weren’t provided in the study text, suggesting that the writer made the calculations based on data contained in one of the study tables. We applaud the extra effort made to provide meaningful statistics to readers! Close call here, but the story goes a step further than WebMD when discussing the possible adverse effects of consuming too much chocolate. In addition to warning that chocolate has a lot of fat, sugar and calories, it explicitly notes that eating too much of it “could be counterproductive.” WebMD offers no comparable warning and suggests that eating more chocolate than was consumed in this study would result in similar health benefits. This story was much more cautious in its depiction of the findings than the competing WebMD coverage. Most important, it was careful to explain high up that the study found only a correlation between chocolate intake and lower stroke risk. As one of the study authors explains: “Given the observational design of the study, findings from this study cannot prove that it’s chocolate that lowers the risk of stroke.” We also appreciate the story’s more nuanced language regarding which constituents of chocolate might be responsible for possible benefits. Whereas WebMD states unequivocally that flavonoids and antioxidants “deserve the credit” for these benefits, Reuters says more judiciously that  flavonoids “may be responsible for chocolate’s apparent effects on health.” [Emphasis ours.] “Whether that theoretical benefit translates into real-life benefits remains to be proven by rigorous studies, however,” Reuters appropriately adds. There was no disease-mongering. This was the only major shortcoming — no independent perspective. An expert in epidemiology might have pointed out, for example, that the data on chocolate consumption were collected from subject self-reports, and therefore should be viewed cautiously. The availability of chocolate is not in question. The story appropriately notes that there is a stronger statistical association with dark chocolate as opposed to milk chocolate. The story notes that previous research has linked higher levels of chocolate consumption with improved heart health. The story includes comments attributed to a direct email from one of the study authors, so we can confirm our overall impression that this story wasn’t based on a press release. Claim: Chocolate lovers have fewer strokes, study finds

A: Starting with the headline, this story is careful to explain that the study observed fewer strokes in those who ate more chocolate; it doesn’t suggest that the chocolate prevented strokes. It also features excellent use of statistics, a more explicit description of potential harms, and mentions alternative approaches to prevention. The only major shortcoming was a lack of an independent perspective on the findings. Some journalists may balk at our insistence that stories about observational studies include appropriate discussion of the limitations of the evidence. In only 378 words, this story provides another example that this can be done – and it doesn’t require the length of a full medical journal article to do so.
****
Q: Paragraph: Burns tackles the famed Mayo Clinic in his next film, exploring the history of the innovative Rochester, Minnesota-based hospital that has been dubbed “The Miracle in a Cornfield.” It has treated luminaries such as the Dalai Lama — and Burns. The first time Burns went, he was immediately impressed by the level and detail of his medical care, like the patient was at the center, not the doctor. “I began to get curious about why this was so different from any other health care experience I’d had,” he said. The result is the two-hour documentary “The Mayo Clinic: Faith, Hope, Science,” which starts with the hospital’s birth during a tornado in 1883 and ends with the modern-day Mayo, state-of-the-art facilities over several campuses that treat up to 14,000 patients in 24 hours. “The Mayo is just a quintessentially American story, just as baseball is a quintessentially American subject, as are the national parks, the Civil War,” Burns said. “And this was a story firing on all cylinders, at least as far as I felt. And it was a story that I don’t think had been fully understood.” The documentary — directed by Burns, Erik Ewers and Christopher Loren Ewers — features the voices of Tom Hanks, Sam Waterston and Blythe Danner, as well as familiar touches: Peter Coyote narrates, there’s rousing music by Aaron Copeland and Scott Joplin, and evocative slow-scans of old photographs known as “the Ken Burns effect.” The film is part of a documentary film empire Burns has on tap. Upcoming are works on the history of country music, Ernest Hemingway, Muhammad Ali, Benjamin Franklin and the American Revolution, as well as deep dives into crime and punishment in America and civil rights during President Lyndon Johnson. “I’m plotted out to 2030 — God and funding willing,” he said with a laugh. “As much as I’d like to believe that I pick projects, in fact I think they pick me. And they pick me because they’re just quintessential American stories, whatever they might be.” Burns has built a reputation for capturing sweeping historic moments with intimate details of peoples’ lives, tackling topics ranging from the Brooklyn Bridge to baseball, from Mark Twain to jazz. His films make the past come alive: Burns was once escorted out of an Alabama church by state troopers from people still upset by the Civil War’s outcome. The Mayo film begins with the unusual collaboration by Dr. W.W. Mayo — “a doctor who worshipped Darwin,” Burns said — and a group of Franciscan nuns who began working with Mayo to help tornado victims in 1883. The hospital adopted a salary-based model of teamwork — not based on ordering tests or a revolving door of patients — that is said to encourage innovation, time with patients and collaboration. In the film, Tom Brokaw and John McCain endorse its methods. So does co-director Erik Ewers, who started the project not as a Mayo patient but ended up one. He had been suffering from intestinal problems for 20 years and had been given seven different diagnoses without finding relief. While he was filming the Mayo documentary, its doctors reached out. “They diagnosed it in two days,” Ewers said. Burns calls Mayo’s formula a “secret sauce” — one that also manages to have poor patients get free care — and hopes it can offer answers to America’s health care problems. “We were making a film about the history the Mayo Clinic, but realized that in their story and in their example might be a way for us all to re-enter a conversation about the essential question: What do we owe each other in terms of taking care of each other?” he said. Burns’ inimitable visual style is sometimes mocked, but the filmmaker isn’t in a rush to embrace flashy special effects, something he calls “all sizzle and no steak.” He admits to dragging his heels on embracing digital cameras and computer editing because he simply liked splicing film stock. But that doesn’t mean he’s inflexible — he used drones in the Mayo film. “There’s a lot of sleek hares out there who are racing past the turtle that we are,” he said. “We make long films. And if you’re going to watch a long film, we have to make sure that we honor the attention you’re giving to us with an equal care in the crafting of it.” The work is painstaking. For the documentary on country music, he estimates his team has pored over 100,000 photographs and scanned 60,000 of them — only to use less than 3,000. “I use the analogy of maple syrup: It takes 40 gallons of sap to make one gallon of maple syrup,” Burns said. By delving into America’s past so much, Burns has learned a lot about human nature, but he dislikes the cliche that history repeats itself. He prefers to quote Mark Twain, who said “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” His work has given him hard-won perspective. When people during the financial crisis in 2007 began evoking the Great Depression, Burns knew his history. He replied that if animals in the zoos were being shot for food, then it was an apt analogy. “That’s what history can do. It’s a kind of an armor or at least a thermal layer that protects you from the chill of the present moment,” he said. ___ Mark Kennedy is at http://twitter.com/KennedyTwits Claim: Ken Burns turns his attention to the Mayo Clinic.

A:
After spearheading an epic, 18-hour documentary on the Vietnam War, acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns has turned to more personal subject matter — one that knows him very intimately, too.
****