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: "The sight of the moon’s shadow passing directly in front of the sun, blotting out all but the halo-like solar corona, may draw the largest live audience for a celestial event in human history. When those watching via broadcast and online media are factored into the mix, the spectacle will likely smash records. “It will certainly be the most observed total eclipse in history,” astronomer Rick Fienberg of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) said last week. The eclipse begins its cross-country trajectory over the Pacific Coast of Oregon in late morning. It will reach South Carolina’s Atlantic shore some 90 minutes later. The total eclipse of the sun is considered one of the most spell-binding phenomena in nature but it rarely occurs over a wide swath of land, let alone one of the world’s most heavily populated countries at the height of summer. In terms of audience potential, it is hard to top the United States, with its mobile and affluent population, even though the direct path is mostly over rural areas, towns and small cities. The largest is Nashville, Tennessee, a city of 660,000 residents. Even so the advent of social media and inexpensive high-tech optics have boosted public awareness, assuring what many U.S. experts predict will be unprecedented viewership for the so-called “Great American Eclipse.”   Some might take issue with that prediction, citing a solar eclipse visible over parts of India, Nepal, Bangladesh and central China in July 2009. National Geographic estimated 30 million people in Shanghai and Hangzhou alone were in its path that day. On Monday, the deepest part of the shadow, or umbra, cast by the moon will fall over a 70-mile-wide (113-km-wide), 2,500-mile-long (4,000-km-long) ""path of totality"" traversing 14 states. The 12 million people who live there can view the eclipse at its fullest merely by walking outside and looking up, weather permitting. (tmsnrt.rs/2fNQHFb)  LIVESTREAMING AND PRICE-GOUGING  Some 200 million Americans reside within a day’s drive of the totality zone, and as many as 7 million, experts say, are expected to converge on towns and campgrounds along the narrow corridor for the event. Many are attending multiday festivals featuring music, yoga and astronomy lectures. Millions more could potentially watch in real time as the eclipse is captured by video cameras mounted on 50 high-altitude balloons and streamed online in a joint project between NASA and Montana State University. A partial eclipse will appear throughout North America. Adding further to the excitement is the wide availability of affordable solar-safe sunglasses produced by the millions and selling so fast that suppliers were running out of stock. The owner of one leading manufacturer reported price gouging by second-hand dealers who were buying up large supplies and reselling them over the internet at a huge mark-up. Not all the hoopla will unfold on dry land. Welsh pop singer Bonnie Tyler is slated to perform her 1983s hit single “Total Eclipse of the Heart” aboard a cruise liner as the vessel sails into the path of totality from Florida on Monday. Back on the ground, forest rangers, police and city managers in the total eclipse zone are bracing for a crush of travelers they fear will cause epic traffic jams and heighten wildfire hazards. “Imagine 20 Woodstock festivals occurring simultaneously across the nation,” Michael Zeiler, an AAS advisory panel member wrote on his website, GreatAmericanEclipse.com, referring to the famously chaotic 1969 outdoor rock extravaganza in upstate New York. Hundreds of residents in a prime-viewing area in Oregon had to evacuate on Saturday under threat from a wildfire raging in the Deschutes National Forest, according to InciWeb fire-tracking website. The so-called Milli Fire, which has scorched more than 7,8OO acres (3,162 hectare), is one of seven burning in Oregon, Montana and Idaho, three of the states crossed by the totality path. Zeiler, an avowed “eclipse chaser” who made the 650-mile (1,046-km) drive from his New Mexico home to Wyoming for a choice view, said South Carolina is likely to see the greatest influx as the destination state closest to the entire U.S. Eastern seaboard. Monday’s event will be the first total solar eclipse spanning the entire continental United States since 1918 and the first visible anywhere in the Lower 48 states in 38 years. The next one over North America is due in just seven years, in April 2024." Claim: Millions of Americans to gaze upon Monday's once-in-a-lifetime eclipse.

SOLUTION: Twilight will fall at midday on Monday, stars will glimmer and birds will roost in an eerie stillness as millions of Americans and visitors witness the first total solar eclipse to traverse the United States from coast to coast in 99 years.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS. This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS. Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa incur average NHS costs of £625 per year. It’s unclear how the Conservatives have calculated this new figure and we’ve asked them for more information. Claim 1 of 3 Claim: Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS.

SOLUTION: This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "The story does not address the cost of estrogen plus progestin treatment, nor the costs added or saved due to complications of or benefits from that therapy. However, the story advocates for selective use of low-dose HRT, and only for use in the short-term if menopausal symptoms are bothersome and negatively affect quality of life. The story provides absolute and relative risks of taking HRT for the short and longer term. The story gives number of cases of breast cancer per 1000 women for those who took hormone therapy v. non-users. The story does an excellent job explaining the return to normal lifetime risk of breast cancer if a woman stops taking HRT. The story does not report the results of the JAMA study accurately. There is misplaced emphasis in the story compared with the study. Statements which appear erroneous: ""Even women who took estrogen and progestin pills for as little as a couple of years had a greater chance of getting [all types of] cancer."" There is nothing in this study to contradict the earlier WHI report showing that breast cancer risks start to diverge after about 4 years , not ""a couple of years"". This article reports on all cancers, not just breast. Nowhere in the JAMA article are all cancers plotted over time to support the assertion of a couple of years. Followed by the assertion that ""…these new findings are likely to end any doubt that the risks outweigh the benefits,"" this creates the inaccurate impression that there are new data showing breast cancer risks start earlier on in the course of treatment. A second inaccuracy concerns the statements about the size of the observed risk of breast cancer: ""At the peak, the breast cancer risk for pill takers was twice that of the others."" Not accurate: the hazard ratio was 1.26, indicating a 26% higher breast cancer risk, not 100% higher (which would be twice the risk). Finally, a main point of the article–that cancer risk [presumably all cancer, not just breast] returns to normal roughly 2 years after quitting — is not supported by the study results. JAMA article states ""The HR for overall risk of all malignancies increased from 1.03…to 1.24…in the postintervention period."" And, ""…a downward inflection in the temporal trend in cumulative HRs for breast cancer was observed over time (not shown) but the observed change…is not statistically significant."" The story does an excellent job presenting the latest information from the Women’s Health Initiative on the risk of breast cancer with prolonged use of HRT. The story explains the study design and also interprets the results for the lay reader. Physician interviews put the results of the study in context and reassure women that their risk profile might be different if they are younger or older (women in the study were in their 60’s, typically after menopause is complete), and that their risk should return to normal a few years after stopping a short-term course of HRT. The story does not present menopause as a disease. Based on information on the risks and benefits of HRT for women in their 50’s, the story reiterates the message from the preliminary WHI report, which is that women should make an informed decision with their physician on this treatment option to help manage severe menopausal symptoms. The story reinforces the idea that menopausal symptoms do not require treatment. The story cites several excellent sources, including public health and cancer specialists, who put the results of previous Women’s Health Initiative and this latest information in context. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is cited on the benefit of HRT in the short-term, and their potential conflict as the maker of Prempro is noted. The story lists HRT as one option for treating very bothersome menopausal symptoms. But other non-medication options are also available, as are non-hormonal drugs used ""off-label"" to ease menopausal symptoms. These are not mentioned. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is currently available for women who wish to alleviate particularly bothersome menopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness. However, as the story notes, HRT should be used judiciously and only for a short time. The story presents information from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) on the increased risk of breast cancer with HRT. The subsequent decline in HRT use after WHI data was made public in 2002 has been linked to a decline in breast cancer cases. HRT is not a new option for treating bothersome symptoms of menopause. It was originally thought that taking estrogen plus progestin treatment could help reduce a woman’s risk of developing age-related heart disease and bone loss. Data from 2002 WHI showed that HRT increased the risk of health disease and breast cancer, and many women discontinued use of this treatment. WHI data discussed in this story reinforce the message that for many women, the risks of HRT outweigh the benefits. There are also other options for managing hot flashes and bothersome menopausal symptoms, which the story does not mention. But for some women, low-dose HRT may still be the most appropriate short-term solution. The story cites several sources and contains independent reporting." Claim: New study firmly ties hormone use to breast cancer

SOLUTION:
"The story does a good job presenting 2002 data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) on the increased risk of developing breast cancer with prolonged use of HRT (also termed estrogen plus progestin treatment). However, the story does not accurately report the results of the recent JAMA paper:   Even women who took estrogen and progestin pills for as little as a couple of years had a greater chance of getting [all types of] cancer."" There is nothing in this study to contradict the earlier WHI report showing that breast cancer risks start to diverge after about 4 years , not ""a couple of years"". This article reports on all cancers, not just breast. Nowhere in the JAMA article are all cancers plotted over time to support the assertion of a couple of years. Followed by the assertion that ""…these new findings are likely to end any doubt that the risks outweigh the benefits,"" this creates the inaccurate impression that there are new data showing breast cancer risks start earlier on in the course of treatment. A second inaccuracy concerns the statements about the size of the observed risk of breast cancer: ""At the peak, the breast cancer risk for pill takers was twice that of the others."" Not accurate: the hazard ratio was 1.26, indicating a 26% higher breast cancer risk, not 100% higher (which would be twice the risk). Finally, a main point of the article–that cancer risk [presumably all cancer, not just breast] returns to normal roughly 2 years after quitting — is not supported by the study results. JAMA article states ""The HR for overall risk of all malignancies increased from 1.03…to 1.24…in the postintervention period."" And, ""…a downward inflection in the temporal trend in cumulative HRs for breast cancer was observed over time (not shown) but the observed change…is not statistically significant."" Despite the misplaced emphasis in the story compared with the source article, public health and cancer specialists put the results of the study in context and reassure women that their risk profile might be different if they are younger or older (women in the study were in their 60’s, typically after menopause is complete). The story lists HRT as one option for treating very bothersome menopausal symptoms; however, HRT should be used judiciously and only for a short time. There are also other options for managing hot flashes and bothersome menopausal symptoms, which the story does not mention. But for some women, low-dose HRT may still be the most appropriate treatment. Women who are considering this choice need accurate information to weigh the risks and benefits of HRT, and the story appropriately provides absolute and relative risks of taking HRT for the short and long-term (5 1/2 years). The story gives number of cases of breast cancer per 1000 women for those who took hormone therapy v. non-users. Lastly, the story does not address the cost of estrogen plus progestin treatment, nor the costs added or saved due to complications of or benefits from that therapy. However, the story advocates for selective use of low-dose HRT."