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 story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers

Output: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Urinary incontinence or loss of bladder control is by far  the most common problem, and childbirth, which can weaken  pelvic floor muscles, is the most frequent cause. “What stands out is such a large number of women had  symptoms of a moderate-to-severe pelvic floor disorder,” said  Dr. Ingrid Nygaard of the University of Utah, whose study  appears in Journal of the American Medical Association. “We know many women leak urine once in a blue moon if they  are doing strenuous exercise. That such a large number leaks on  a regular basis was surprising to see,” she said by telephone. Nygaard’s team studied 1,961 nonpregnant women aged 20 and  older who were part of a national health survey in 2005-2006. They were examined for symptoms of urinary and fecal  incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, in which an organ such  as the bladder drops and pushes against the walls of the  vagina. Overall, 23.7 percent of women reported symptoms of at  least one pelvic floor disorder. Of these, 15.7 percent had  urinary incontinence, 9 percent had fecal incontinence and 2.9  percent had pelvic organ prolapse, in which women reported  seeing or feeling a vaginal bulge. Age plays a major role, with just 10 percent of women 20 to  39 reporting at least one disorder, compared with about a  quarter of women 40 to 59, 37 percent of women 60 to 79, and  nearly half of women 80 and older. Women were considered to have urinary incontinence if they  had at least weekly leakage, or monthly leakage of volumes of  more than just a few drops. If women with occasional leakage were included, the numbers  might be much higher, the researchers said. “The study results underscore the need to identify the  causes of pelvic floor disorders and the means to prevent and  treat them,” Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National  Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said in a  statement. Treatments for urinary stress incontinence — the kind  linked with laughing, coughing, sneezing or exercise — range  from exercises to surgical options. Urge incontinence or overactive bladder can be treated by  lifestyle changes and a number of drugs, including tolterodine  or Detrol made by Pfizer Inc; Vesicare or solifenacin made by  GlaxoSmithKline and Astellas Pharma Inc; and Enablex or  darifenacin by Novartis AG. Claim: Pelvic disorders common among women: study.

Output: Nearly one quarter of all U.S. women  have some sort of pelvic floor disorder such as urinary or  fecal incontinence, and more cases are likely as the population  ages, researchers said on Tuesday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The annual effort to raise public awareness about the environment and inspire actions to clean it up marks its 41st anniversary on Friday, coinciding with the Christian Good Friday and Judaism’s celebration of Passover. In an effort dubbed ""A Billion Acts of Green,"" organizers are encouraging people to observe Earth Day 2011 by pledging online at act.earthday.org/ to do something small but sustainable in their own lives to improve the planet's health -- from switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs to reducing the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. “Millions of people doing small, individual acts can add up to real change,” said Chad Chitwood, a spokesman for the umbrella group coordinating efforts. There will be hundreds of rallies, workshops and other events around the United States, where Earth Day was born, and hundreds more overseas, where it is now celebrated in 192 countries. In the United States the activities range from the premiere of the new film from the director of “Who Killed the Electric Car?” (it’s called “Revenge of the Electric Car”) at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York to a discussion about creating a green economy in 12 cities along the Gulf Coast, where this time last year residents were reeling from the effects of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the years since the first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970 the environmentalist movement made great strides with passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other groundbreaking laws. But the bipartisanship that marked the birth of Earth Day — it was sponsored in Congress by a Wisconsin Democrat named Gaylord Nelson and a California Republican named Pete McCloskey — is often missing in discussions about environmental policy today. Efforts to fight climate change by regulating greenhouse gases, for instance, face fierce resistance from many Republicans and members of the business community, who dispute the science supporting global warming and warn new rules to regulate emissions will kill jobs and raise energy costs." Claim: "Earth Day organizers call for ""a billion acts of green""."


Output: If the environmental movement has a high holiday, Earth Day is it.