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: The article did not discuss costs. Screening mammograms impose a significant cost on the U.S. health care system and insurers, particularly Medicare. The story detailed the relative harms of earlier mammograms, but did not translate those percentages into absolute numbers. For instance, women who were diagnosed with breast cancer 25 months or more after their last mammogram were “50 percent more likely” to need chemotherapy, “32 percent more likely” to need mastectomy, and “66 percent more likely” to need lymph nodes removed. However, relative risk can be misleading, sometimes inflating numbers to sound scarier than when absolute numbers are used. Also, we don’t know what kind of risk these women had at baseline, so it’s hard to know if they were higher risk. The story made no mention of the harms of earlier or more frequent screening, which have been documented time and time again. More screening can mean more false positives or more finding of breast changes that lead to more testing, such as biopsies, more costs, and more worry. The story did make clear some of the weaknesses of the study: The study found an association but did not prove causality and the study population was limited to a single health care institution. The story also mentions that the findings were presented at a meeting, which means they have not undergone peer-review. The story does not directly engage in fear-mongering. However, some of the quotes advocating for earlier and more frequent screening play into a scenario that breast cancer is lurking in every woman. A discussion of what a woman’s average lifetime risk is would have been helpful. The story quotes the study author and an outside source. The story makes clear that different advisory groups have differing guidelines for what age to start getting mammograms (40 or 50 years old). It would have been nice if the story had included examples of what makes someone higher risk or not (personal cancer history, family history, history of radiation), but we think this was satisfactory. We believe that mammograms are well-known to be widely available. And the earlier and more frequent screening described here is not earlier or more frequent than what many guidelines recommend, so would not be expected to be denied by health insurers. The story makes clear the distinctive aspects of this study —using avoidance of more aggressive treatment regimens as a deciding factor, as opposed to the more extreme avoidance of cancer death. The story goes beyond what was contained in a news release on the presentation at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting. Claim: Earlier Mammograms May Mean Less Need for Aggressive Treatments

Output: This HealthDay news story reports on findings among women diagnosed with breast cancer: those who had longer intervals between mammograms end up getting more aggressive treatments, including chemotherapy and surgery. The story would have been stronger had it described the findings using absolute rather than relative numbers. But, we were glad to see an independent source offer some reservations about the small observational study raised. A final note — the image accompanying the story was laughably unrealistic. Mammograms are the primary screening method for detecting breast cancer. However, when to start getting mammograms and how often to get screened have been subjects of controversy for the past decade. That’s because the data on how to balance risk of developing breast cancer and the risk of harms from screening (unnecessary tests and procedures) are interpreted differently by doctors and other experts. A story that adds new data to the field and that might tip current guidelines one way or the other is newsworthy.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Xuzhou, around 400 miles (640 kilometers) from Beijing, is implementing an “orange alert” pollution control program aimed at “ensuring air quality during the National Day period”, according to a notice reviewed by Reuters and authenticated by industry sources. China’s environment ministry warned on Monday that “unfavorable” weather conditions would lead to a prolonged and widespread outbreak of smog stretching along the eastern coast for around two weeks, and urged local governments throughout affected regions to take swift action. The smog has already forced Beijing and surrounding cities to implement special restrictions on heavy industries, including steel, power and cement, in order to ensure skies remain clear during the Chinese capital’s 70th anniversary parade on Oct. 1. Beijing’s environment bureau said on Wednesday that it had also issued an orange alert, the second highest in a four-tier pollution alarm system, lasting from Thursday until further notice. It will curtail production and restrict traffic. Xuzhou, home to more than a dozen steel firms, started restricting steel output on Wednesday, and will close down all production from Thursday evening. Coking coal producers will also be subject to controls. Restrictions will be placed on freight vehicle deliveries in major industries and on straw burning in rural districts. The city will also work to source its electricity from cleaner and efficient sources over the next few days. In smog-prone Anyang, another major steel producing city in central China’s Henan province, authorities have implemented “red alert” pollution control measures that started on Wednesday, imposing tougher restrictions on industry and transportation. According to a government notice circulated by traders and the local media, Anyang ordered small, independent sintering plants to close on Wednesday, and will shut down all steel production from Thursday evening. Anyang was one of China’s most polluted cities last winter, with concentrations of PM2.5 up 27% over the period. It is located near the Taihang mountain range, which the environment ministry said is currently trapping emissions and channeling them towards Beijing. Claim: China extends pollution curbs ahead of National Day celebrations.

Output: The heavy industrial city of Xuzhou in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu will shut local factories on Thursday as part of efforts to reduce smog ahead of the country’s National Day celebrations next week, the local government said.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "It's not every state that has two candidates running for president, but this year Minnesota has both Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann competing for the Republican nomination. But the state's ""Minnesota nice"" reputation doesn't seem to apply to presidential politics. Bachmann, a member of Congress, has been attacking Pawlenty, a former two-term governor, for not being conservative enough. Pawlenty, meanwhile, has said Bachmann has few legislative accomplishments and wasn't known for getting results. We checked part of Bachmann's attack in separate fact-check. She accused Pawlenty of saying in 2006 that ""The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive."" We looked into the history of Pawlenty's comments and rated her statement . Here, we're looking at Pawlenty's response. He said that while he was ""elected twice in a very blue state, Congresswoman Bachmann was giving speeches and offering failed amendments,"" among other things. Pawlenty also said in an interview on July 10, 2011, that Bachmann's ""record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent."" Here, we wanted to check Pawlenty's statement about Bachmann's record of accomplishment. Is it as thin as he suggests? To check, we turned to the federal legislative database THOMAS, media accounts and other public records. We found Pawlenty was largely correct: Bachmann does not have many legislative victories under her belt. Instead, Bachmann seems to prefer offering legislation that makes a bold statement. This year, she proposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent, stripping President Barack Obama's health care law of funding, overturning new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs and repealing the financial regulatory overhaul that passed just last year. None of those bills has received a vote from the full U.S. House of Representatives. Bachmann has served in Congress since 2006, and hasn't sponsored anything that's become law. Her most successful proposals were a 2008 resolution expressing support for agencies that provide services to foster children and a 2009 resolution to designate September as ""National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month"". (Hydrocephalus is a buildup of fluid inside the skull, leading to brain swelling, which can be fatal.) Both measures were approved by the House but not the Senate. We went looking for other accounts to either confirm or refute Pawlenty's charge. (We contacted Bachmann's campaign for comment and didn't hear back.) We knew from previous reporting that sometimes a legislator's bill is incorporated into other larger legislation with a different sponsor. We wanted to make sure were weren't missing giving Bachmann credit for a case like this. Instead, we found more confirmation that her legislative record is thin. Here's how POLITICO summarized its review of her record: ""Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she's sponsored signed into law, and she's never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann's amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator."" MinnPost.com, a nonpartisan Minnesota-based news website, concluded: ""She has had a few amendments passed, among the most famous of which aimed to prevent groups like ACORN from sitting on a proposed consumer advisory panel on financial protection and making them ineligible for certain federal grants. But most of her legislation, like her health-care reform bill that would make all health care costs tax deductible and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, has been introduced and referred to committee, never to be heard from again."" In February 2010, the St. Cloud Times newspaper of Minnesota asked Bachmann about her legislative achievements. Here's the question and her response:  St. Cloud Times: ""Name three bills or amendments that you have gotten passed that are the most beneficial to the people of the 6th Congressional District."" Bachmann: ""I was involved in a foster care amendment to support and encourage people in foster care. It is a very important issue. Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-La.) and I are working on the Haiti situation. We are trying to put together initiatives so that children can actually go into homes and not stay in institutions their whole life. I was able to pass this resolution honoring people in foster care. I am in the deep minority in Congress and a fairly new freshman, so I don't have substantive bills that I have passed. I would love to. The very first bill I introduced was the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act."" We should note that Bachmann's point about being in the minority has some merit. It's often difficult if not impossible for legislators in the minority to get bills passed. But Republicans did regained the majority this year. Also, she's right that new members of Congress often don't get legislation passed, though Bachmann was in her second term when she made her comments to the St. Cloud Times. But even Bachmann supporters seem to admit that passing legislation isn't really her thing. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told POLITICO that Bachmann has had ""a profound effect on the debate,"" comparing her with Winston Churchill. ""It doesn't mean you always win. In fact, as we know, Churchill lost and lost and was a voice of reason in Great Britain for a long time before people finally realized he was right,"" Gohmert said. Finally, we checked in with two political watchers in Minnesota to see if we were missing anything from Bachmann's record. ""Pawlenty more or less got it correct in terms of saying her legislative record is insubstantial. She has never been known for doing real legislative work or in really moving legislation. She is better at giving speeches,"" said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University who studies Minnesota politics. And though Bachamnn was in the legislative minority for a time in Congress, Schultz said, she never chose to create a legislative record. ""Thus, it did not surprise me that once this year she became part of a majority in the House, she opted to run for president. I do not think she was prepared actually to govern and do real legislative work."" Steve Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College, said that Bachmann ""has defined herself during her political career as a public advocate, not an executive or legislator. Her goal has been to draw bright rhetorical lines and marshal support for her purist conservative positions."" In ruling on Pawlenty's statement, he said that Bachmann's record was one of ""failed amendments"" and ""nonexistent."" There's a little bit of exaggeration there. In addition to failed amendments, she had failed bills, and those measures did, in fact, exist, even if they didn't pass. But his larger point that Bachmann hasn't had many legislative accomplishments is correct." Claim: "Michele Bachmann's legislative record is ""offering failed amendments."


Output: Tim Pawlenty said Michele Bachmann's legislative record is 'failed amendments'