TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
PROBLEM: "With the coronavirus pandemic sending automobile miles plummeting — and with it, demand for gasoline — Americans are finding prices at the pump to be lower than they’ve been in years. But New York state remains on the higher end of that range. That’s what WKBW-TV, Buffalo’s ABC affiliate, reported on April 27, citing the American Automobile Association. ""New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00, according to numbers provided by the AAA of Western and Central New York,"" the report said. Is that correct? Yes. We asked AAA for the gas price data for April 27, and they provided us with the full list of 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The data comes from surveys of up to 120,000 gas stations across the country. We looked at the price per gallon for unleaded regular. Here’s the list of states, from most expensive to least expensive:  According to this list, New York, at $2.18 a gallon, was the seventh most expensive state for gasoline, trailing Hawaii, California, Washington state, Oregon, Nevada, and the District of Columbia. (D.C. isn’t a state, but we’ll grant some leeway.) The other five states with gas prices above $2.00 were Arizona, Pennsylvania, Utah, Alaska, and New Jersey. That adds up to 12 states above $2.00, as the statement said, as long as you include D.C. as a state. Three states had gas below $1.40 a gallon: Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. AAA isn’t the only source of this data. We also looked at data from the wesbite GasBuddy. GasBuddy sent us their own state-by-state prices from April 27 and it shows a similar pattern, but slightly different due to data sampling. New York, at $2.13, was one of eight states with gas prices above $2.00. In descending order, they were Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington state, Nevada, New York, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. That’s fewer than the 12 states that AAA found with $2.00-plus gasoline, but four additional states on the GasBuddy list had prices just under $2.00. Utah, Alaska, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey all had gas prices at between $1.95 and $1.95. One reason why gas prices are relatively high in New York is the tax burden, according to an interactive map produced by the American Petroleum Institute. In 2018, New Yorkers paid more than 45 cents a gallon in state taxes and 18 cents a gallon in federal taxes, for a total of 63 cents a gallon. That’s nearly twice what Ohio motorists pay in taxes. New York is one of just a handful of states where motorists pay more than 49 cents a gallon in gasoline taxes. Since the article appeared, the situation hasn’t changed much. By the following week, only 10 states had average gas prices above $2.00 per gallon, and New York remained one of them. With some states beginning to re-open portions of their economies, gasoline prices have increased slightly in some states, according to AAA and GasBuddy data. But the average price per gallon in the United States had only risen a couple of cents per gallon, In New York, the changes were also minimal. AAA had New York’s average price per gallon at $2.15, while GasBuddy had a slightly lower price, $2.12. A news report cited the American Automobile Association in saying that ""New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00."" AAA provided us the full data, confirming that the statement is correct, as long as the District of Columbia is counted as a state. Among the 50 states and D.C., New York ranked seventh highest in per-gallon prices for regular unleaded. Another gasoline price metric, from GasBuddy, had eight states above $2.00, with four additional states between $1.95 and $1.99."

SOLUTION: “New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00.”

PROBLEM: "At a minimum, the reporter could have found out how much the master used in the study typically charges and how much the DVD costs. Still, unlike most of the stories, this reporter did write, ""Dr. Shmerling said that though tai chi is inexpensive compared with other treatments, some patients would reject such an alternative therapy."" The story presents the evidence in relative terms. It would have been nice to see the absolute numbers. Still, it’s easy to calculate roughly what one third of 33 would be and one sixth would be. Essentially about 11 people stopped taking drugs after tai chi, and 5 or 6 stopped using other therapies. That’s not a huge difference, but, because there was any improvement, the researchers and the journal were understandably curious and hoping the study might spark more research. A big point of the story is that tai chi would be a much less onerous therapy with no harmful side effects. It is difficult to imagine that twice-weekly tai chi, like any other form of moderate exercise, would be harmful, but, at a minimum, the story could have reported upon the study’s adverse events registry. The journal article on which the story is based clearly discussed this. The story makes it clear early that the study is small and that more research would be needed in order to recommend tai chi as a therapy. There is no disease mongering and the description of the syndrome is the best of the five stories we reviewed. Most of the quotes in the story are from people not affiliated with the study. The story talks about how the study compared different alternatives, and it mentions, at least in passing, several other therapies. The story makes it clear that there are multiple versions of tai chi. It could have been more clear about how widely available it might be, especially in sparsely populated areas. The story says, ""Recent studies have suggested that tai chi, with its slow exercises, breathing and meditation, could benefit patients with other chronic conditions, including arthritis. But not all of these reports have been conclusive, and tai chi is hard to study because there are many styles and approaches."" This is all important context, succinctly presented. This story shows that you can pull together a lot of information and still keep the story tight. The story is very well reported and goes well beyond the original study, the editorial and any supporting materials. We were unable to locate a press release about the study."

SOLUTION: Tai Chi Reported to Ease Fibromyalgia

PROBLEM: The article did not include information about the cost of this medication. According to recent Consumer Reports data, Lexapro at the dosages studied here would cost about $110 a month. This significant cost is something to bear in mind considering the modest benefit the drug confers compared to a sugar pill. The story quantifies the benefits of treatment in appropriate absolute terms. It explains that women taking the antidepressant went from about 10 hot flashes per day to 5.26 hot flashes a day, a decline of 47% or about 4.5 fewer hot flashes a day. By comparison, women taking the placebo reported 6.43 hot flashes a day after treatment, a decline of 33% or about 3 fewer a day. The story also quantifies the severity of the hot flashes in terms that are useful to the reader. The story perhaps could have provided some context regarding the size of the benefit compared with placebo, which was relatively small. It also could have noted noted that symptom reductions were much more modest than those seen with hormone treatment. The story wasn’t thorough enough in its exploration of potential harms. The only adverse effect noted is the potential loss of libido discussed in the last line of the story. At one point, the story seems to dismiss the potential for harm by noting that  “no serious adverse events were reported” in the study. However, minor adverse effects take on greater importance when a drug provides only a modest benefit over placebo — which is the case with this medication. The study should have provided more detail on what harms were observed (even “minor” ones), and how frequently. Lexapro, when used for depression, commonly results in gastrointestinal disturbance such as nausea, vomiting, loose stools, and indigestion. A variety of other adverse effects are possible, including include difficulty sleeping and headaches. It is quite conceivable that an increase in these problems might outweigh the small benefit associated with the reduction in hot flashes, so the story should have provided this information. Another issue not addressed by the story is the potential for uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms when stopping this medication. This point is particularly relevant to make here because Lexapro hasn’t been extensively studied in women who are healthy and don’t have symptoms of depression. We know that some people with depression experience withdrawal symptoms after they stop taking the drug, but we don’t have much evidence on what happens to healthy non-depressed people when they stop taking it. The risk of a discontinuation syndrome increases the longer antidepressant therapy lasts, so an 8-week study may not capture the problems that women may experience with longer-term use of Lexapro for relief of hot flash symptoms. The story could have mentioned that women should never abruptly stop taking an antidepressant medication like Lexapro, as this can increase the risk of more severe withdrawal symptoms. The story includes enough details about how the study was conducted and what the researchers observed to earn a satisfactory. It notes that this was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study — the “gold standard” of medical evidence. It explains that outcomes were based on women’s records of how often and how severe their hot flashes were — a relevant clinical endpoint. Although the story notes that women in the study took the drug for 8 weeks, it could have explained that 8 weeks isn’t long to meet FDA criteria for a hot flash treatment; the FDA requires that benefits be maintained for 12-weeks. The study also should have explained that we have no idea how well these drugs will work over the longer term (menopause symptoms can last for years) or whether problems might occur with longer use (more on this in the Harms criterion). Lastly, it would have been useful to have some discussion of how the treatment affected general health-related quality of life; this would have helped readers understand the importance of the observed benefit on hot flashes when considering overall health/function. Menopause has been the subject of considerable disease mongering over the years — see here for some examples. This story, though, confines the discussion to women whose symptoms are severe enough to disrupt their lives and quality of life. That seems to be a fair basis upon which to identify women who might be candidates for some kind of medical treatment of menopause symptoms. The story could have provided data on how many women suffer from moderate to severe hot flash symptoms, to give a better idea of how widespread the problem is. The story quotes an independent expert who seems generally supportive of antidepressant therapy for hot flashes. While we don’t think it would have been difficult to find someone with a more skeptical take on the results, which would have added value for readers, the story did enough to satisfy this aspect of the criterion. (UPDATED COMMENT INSERTED ON 2/24/11:  We originally but erroneously wrote that this story failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest. But it actually did, when it stated: “The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging and other sources. Freeman reports having received research support from Forest Laboratories Inc., and other pharmaceutical companies that make antidepressants. For this study, Forest, which makes escitalopram, provided the drug and placebo pills but no funding.”) The story mentions that hormone therapy is another treatment option for hot flashes, but it doesn’t provide enough information to allow the reader to compare the two approaches. The story should have mentioned that hormone therapy seems to be more effective than antidepressants at reducing hot flash symptoms, although the risks may also be greater. It also could have mentioned that complementary and alternative medicine approaches are often used for hot flashes.

SOLUTION:
Antidepressant May Help Ease Hot Flashes