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: There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating “watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer” by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer

Output: As with the NPR and AP stories we also reviewed, this story helped frame this issue in the first few lines rather than burying it at the end as so often is the case. To have an expert not involved in study quoted in the second paragraph saying “findings are not likely to be practice-changing” provides readers with balanced perspective right from the start. It was also good that the story concluded with a quote that expanded on what it means to “individualize” treatment. Unlike the concluding quote in the NPR story, this one provided language suggestive of shared decision making by adding ‘in relation to the risk stratification of disease, PATIENT DESIRES, health status, and RISK TOLERANCE”. (emphasis added)  Good way to end the story. Decisions about what, if anything, to do when facing a diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer is difficult and this story provided readers with useful information to consider.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The unveiling of former President Barack Obama’s official portrait on 12 February 2018 also introduced many Americans to artist Kehinde Wiley for the first time as well, as opening the door to late-breaking controversy over some of Wiley’s earlier work. Wiley, who has described his own visual style as “bombastic, syrupy, and garish,” is celebrated in the contemporary art world for his large-scale portraits of black and brown men and women striking heroic poses modeled on those of aristocrats in classic European paintings. Two portraits in particular, both of them modern takes on the biblical story of Judith beheading Holofernes and featuring elegantly-dressed black women brandishing the severed heads of white women, suddenly turned controversial in the context of Wiley’s new role as a presidential portraitist. Images of the paintings were shared on social media with comments stating or implying that their content is racist: This what is confusing to me … you can’t have Confederate flags … you take down historical statues because they are racist but the 44th POTUS picks the guy who painted these pictures to paint his presidential portrait and that’s just fine? Maybe I’m missing something? #tcot pic.twitter.com/9RhYCGPQK7 — Jeannie-ology (@jeanniology) February 12, 2018  So a racist ex-President selects a racist artist to paint his picture. Anyone surprised? Artist Who Painted Obama’s Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites https://t.co/JarXVYUQ27 — American Real News (@USArealnews) February 13, 2018  In a post on right-wing blog TheGatewayPundit.com, Kehinde Wiley was described as being “known for” and “having a great fondness for” painting black people beheading white people: Both beheading pieces are titled “Judith beheading Holofernes”, referencing a story in the Book of Judith, which involves a beautiful woman who seduces an invading general before he is able to destroy their land, gets him drunk, and then decapitates him. Typical artists from the Rennaissance [sic] era have placed Judith in the role of a scriptural savior, “a type of the praying Virgin or the church or as a figure who tramples Satan and harrows Hell.” Given the historical context and how Wiley recreated it in his works, is hard to interpret his use of this theme as anything other than a blatant statement of racism; black women are the powerful angels of the earth, conquering the white devils. Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It’s hard to imagine, right? Yea, that’s because it’s disgusting and backward. It is not the case, however, that Wiley was “famous for depicting black people killing white people” before politically motivated commentators chose to make it so. Far from it. Of the scores of paintings the artist has produced, only the two based on the biblical beheading story depict such a scene. They generated very little controversy before Wiley’s portrait of Obama was publicly unveiled. That the strong, couture-clad black females in the paintings are depicted in the immediate aftermath of decapitating white women is not incidental. As with many works of art, this was meant to be provocative (“I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations,” Wiley said in a 2015 interview). A 2012 article on the web site of the North Carolina Museum of Art (NCMA) supplies some needed context: Known for his monumental portraits of young black men, placed in historical poses and settings appropriated from Old Master paintings, Kehinde Wiley critiques the racism of art history while also commenting on contemporary street culture and masculine identity. Reinventing classical portraiture and questioning who is represented in the portraits found in museums worldwide, Wiley states, “The whole conversation of my work has to do with power and who has it.” Judith and Holofernes is from Wiley’s most recent body of work and his first series of paintings to feature female subjects. Wiley uses “street casting” to find his models — walking city streets and asking ordinary people if they would pose for a portrait. He met the model for this painting, Treisha Lowe, at Fulton Mall, a pedestrian shopping street in downtown Brooklyn. This painting references a specific art-historical work, a 17th-century painting by Giovanni Baglione, Judith and the Head of Holofernes (1608). The subject is taken from the apocryphal Old Testament Book of Judith, in which a Jewish town is under attack by the Assyrian army led by the general Holofernes. Judith, a widow from the town, goes to Holofernes under the pretense of helping him defeat the Jews. After he falls asleep, she cuts his head off with his own sword, and the town defeats the army. Wiley translates this image of a courageous, powerful woman into a contemporary version that resonates with fury and righteousness. “It’s sort of a play on the ‘kill whitey’ thing,” Wiley said in a 2012 interview with New York Magazine. The operative word is “play.”  What is all too easy to miss on a cursory glance is the deeply conceptual nature of these works. We turn again to the NCMA’s commentary: Wiley takes obvious artistic license with the story — Holofernes is represented by a woman’s head, and Judith wears a gown designed by Riccardo Tisci of Givenchy. This new rendition can be interpreted on many different levels, including racial and gender identity and inequity, the representation of women throughout art history, and society’s ideals for beauty. In Wiley’s words, “I am painting women in order to come to terms with the depictions of gender within the context of art history. One has to broaden the conversation . . . This series of works attempts to reconcile the presence of black female stereotypes that surrounds their presence and/or absence in art history, and the notions of beauty, spectacle, and the ‘grand’ in painting.” In contrast to the blunt literalism of those who prefer to interpret these paintings as a celebration of racial violence, art critic Walter Robinson writes that Wiley’s take on Judith and Holofernes “suggests, with a jovial brutality, that Judith would prefer to be done with white standards of beauty.” If, as Wiley has said, his intent as an artist is to be provocative, he can consider himself successful. Claim: Kehinde Wiley, the artist who painted former President Barack Obama's official portrait, also produced a pair of paintings depicting black women decapitating white people.

Output: We reached out to Mr. Wiley for comment, but did not receive a reply.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Bar Manager Nicolas de Soto mixes a Calvados-based cocktail at ECC in Chinatown, London December 3, 2010. REUTERS/Toby Melville In an analysis of 14 studies, a team led by Satoru Kodama at the University of Tsukuba Institute of Clinical Medicine in Japan found that the heaviest drinkers were more likely to be diagnosed with the condition than people who drank little to no alcohol. Though definitions of “heavy” drinking varied, it meant at least two or more drinks per day for men, and one or more per day for women. In some studies, heavy drinkers downed at least six drinks per day. While doctors have long known that a drinking binge can trigger an episode of atrial fibrillation (AF), the findings — reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology — suggest that usual drinking habits may also matter. “What we revealed in the current (study) is that not only episodic but habitual heavy drinking is associated with higher risk of AF,” said Hirohito Sone, a colleague of Kodama’s, told Reuters Health by email. Atrial fibrillation is the most common abnormal heart rhythm and is not in itself life-threatening, but patients with it are at significantly higher risk of strokes. It may also result in palpitations, fainting, chest pain or congestive heart failure. When all the study results were combined, heavy drinkers were 51 percent more likely to suffer atrial fibrillation than either non-drinkers or occasional drinkers. Overall, the risk edged up 8 percent for every increase of 10 grams in participants’ daily alcohol intake. More than 2.6 million U.S. citizens will suffer from atrial fibrillation this year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition becomes more common with age and additional risk factors include high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity. Since coronary heart disease is much more common cause of death than atrial fibrillation, Sone said moderate drinking — up to one or two drinks per day — is probably still a heart-healthy habit for most people. A better way to show a connection is with studies that measure people’s drinking habits, then follow them over time to see who develops atrial fibrillation, said Kenneth Mukamal of Harvard University and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, who led two of the studies included in the analysis. One of Mukamal’s studies found a connection only between heavy drinking, with men who had five or more drinks a day having a higher risk of developing the condition over time than occasional drinkers. Mukamal said that, based on longer-term studies, “there’s little risk from chronic drinking in moderation, but heavier drinking — even rarely — acutely increases risk.”   SOURCE: bit.ly/guQxql Claim: Heavy drinking may raise abnormal heart rhythm risk.


Output: People who drink regularly, especially heavy drinkers, may be more likely than teetotalers to suffer atrial fibrillation, a type of abnormal heart rhythm, according to a research review.