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 extraordinary safety measures that will govern the May 20-22 session were delineated in a letter Wednesday from Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan to the House minority leader. Legislators will have to pledge to follow Illinois Department of Public Health guidelines to prevent the spread of the highly contagious and potentially lethal coronavirus. They include pre-session testing of all legislators for COVID-19. Eschewing the traditional Capitol setting, the House will be called to order six blocks away at the Bank of Springfield Center in downtown Springfield, to take advantage of the spacious convention center floor for social distancing. The Senate, whose membership is half the House’s 118 seats, will meet in its regular chamber, Senate President Don Harmon said in a statement. The Oak Park Democrat rallied senators to return to action with the “cooperative spirit of bipartisan achievement” they’ve shown before. “This global pandemic has decimated our state and local economies regardless of political affiliation,” Harmon said. “From far-flung living rooms, kitchen tables and home offices, senators have been working together — while apart — to figure out what we can and need to do now.” Legislators, whom Gov. J.B. Pritzker declared essential workers and not subject to his seven-week-old stay-at-home order scheduled to expire May 30, have nonetheless been absent from the Statehouse since early March to prevent spreading sickness. That period represents the heart of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring-session calendar, ending with a scheduled May 31 adjournment and typically a budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Pritzker implored lawmakers to help those left out of initial federal relief deals. “Lots of people fell through the cracks,” Pritzker said at his daily COVID-19 briefing in Chicago. Relief won’t come from the state treasury. Tax revenue lost because of the pandemic has opened a $7 billion deficit in the current budget and next year’s. Illinois will be dependent on the federal government, Pritzker said. “We need to rely upon federal government and its support for all the states in order for us to provide the services that people need or for us to pay for the education that our kids need, and for us to support our businesses and our families,” Pritzker said. Madigan’s letter to House GOP Leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs said all state representatives must pledge to abide by public health guidelines for safely congregating. In addition to pre-trip testing, they include agreeing to undergo body temperature checks upon entering the building for sessions, wearing provided face coverings whenever meeting with staff members or colleagues, avoiding outside meetings or social engagements, and undergoing another test upon returning home. It won’t be the first time lawmakers convened outside of the current Statehouse, which welcomed its first session in 1877. In recent history, the legislative chambers were undergoing renovation when then-Gov. George Ryan called a special session in the summer of 2000 to temporarily remove the state sales tax on gasoline during a price spike. Sessions were conducted in the auditorium of the Howlett Building next door to the Capitol. ___ Check out more of the AP’s coronavirus coverage at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak ___ Follow Political Writer John O’Connor at https://twitter.com/apoconnor Claim: Safety measures to govern Legislature’s return to capital.

A: The Illinois General Assembly will return to Springfield for three days next week to take up a spring session workload long delayed by the coronavirus pandemic.
****
Q: Paragraph: In 2009, there were 119.45 male newborns for every 100 females, down from 120.56 in 2008 and the first decline in years, said Li Bin, head of the State Population and Family Planning Commission. The natural ratio should be about 105 males per 100 females at birth, but the gap has widened in China since it introduced a one-child policy three decades ago to curb population growth — a restriction that bolstered a traditional preference for boys. Wider use of ultrasound and abortions has caused the imbalance to increase significantly in recent years, shocking ordinary Chinese and alarming leaders who worry violence and instability could plague a society full of unmarried young men. “Looked at from a comprehensive perspective, the lopsided sex ratio at birth has started to be contained,” Li said in comments reported on the government’s main website (www.gov.cn). She said it would take many more years to consolidate the trend, calling for more vigilance in rooting out pre-birth gender scans and abortions that do not serve a medical purpose. More than 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses in 2020, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said last year. The government research institution named the imbalance as the most serious demographic problem faced by the country’s 1.3 billion population. Claim: China takes baby steps in narrowing gender imbalance.

A: China has taken its first baby steps in narrowing a gender chasm that has left the country with tens of millions more boys than girls, an official said on Thursday.
****
Q: Paragraph: "The story mentioned that CT scans are faster and better at diagnosing certain problems than are other types of imaging. It did not, however, provide information about the costs of various types of imaging or whether there were differences in terms of costs covered by insurance. Since the story focused on the harms of the approach, quantifying the benefits of CT scans is not imperative in this case. The article fails to flesh out the quantification of the effect under study, namely additional risk of cancers. While the source study reports on ""attributable risk"" of cancer and cancer-deaths due to CT scanning, it would be helpful for the viewer to know what this means in terms of numbers of cancers and risk to the individual. The story mentioned that it was reporting on information in a recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine. However they did not report on the nature of the study. They did not mention the methods used to estimated the additional risk due to CT radiation exposure. The source article mentions that a more definitive prospective observational study is ongoing. This story should have pointed out the possible limitations of the study. The story reported that the article it discussed estimated that the percentage of cancer caused by CT scans will increase from 0.4% to 2.0%. It did not, however explain that the content was extrapolated from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses. It would have been useful to provide a framework to understand the relative significance of the reported on increase in number of cancers. How does it compare, for example to the numbers of cancers due to cigarette smoking? The reporter interviewed two sources in the story. One was the first author of the article being reported on. One appeared not to be involved in the study reported on. It would have been helpful to clearly identify the doctors beyond their names to explain why they were interviewed. Two other scanning methods -MRI and ultrasound – were briefly mentioned. The story did not include information about availability of CT scans (i.e. in hospital setting, in free standing imaging centers). However, the point of the story was that the technology is over used. While not meeting our usual standard of describing availability, the context of the news spot makes this less important. Although the story mentioned that patients ought to make sure that the doctor gives you ‘the least possible dose’, it did not inform the viewer that this option is not available on all CT equipment. The story was clear that it wasn’t reporting on a new approach but rather on the increased use of an existing diagnostic method. While mentioning that ‘many of these CT scans are unnecessary’ the story did little in terms of better enabling a viewer to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary scans. Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release." Claim: CT scans add to cancer risk

A:
The report accurately reflects the implications of the explosive growth of CT scanning that carries a higher radiation dose than many other x-ray examinations. The news story does an efficient job of discussing the dilemma of how to approach a valuable diagnostic test with a new appreciation of risks. Where it falls short, however, is in providing a better context for the viewer. What type of study gave rise to the report? This was a statistical estimation of risk, extrapolating from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses. How confident should the viewer be given this method? What are the risks to the individual of a CT scan, and how many extra cancers are we really talking about? Can the benefits of this test (versus alternatives) be quantified? Finally, identifying disinterested experts in this highly-technical field to put this dilemma into perspective would be helpful.
****