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: The 78-year-old TV personality tells People magazine he’s responding very well to chemotherapy and the doctors have told him “they hadn’t seen this kind of positive results in their memory.” Trebek says some of the tumors have shrunk by more than 50%. Trebek announced his diagnosis in March, but said he intended to keep working. He said he planned to beat the disease’s low survival rate with the love and support of family and friends and with prayers from viewers. The American Cancer Society estimates 3% of patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer are alive 5 years after being diagnosed. Trebek says he still has several more rounds of treatment to hopefully get into full remission.

SOLUTION: Alex Trebek shares ‘mind-boggling’ pancreatic cancer update.

PROBLEM: The story not only mentions the cost of a scan to individuals ($100 to $500), it also notes that about $50 million dollars was spent on this type of scanning nationwide in 2008. A longer story could have also reported on the costs of additional testing and treatments triggered by screening apparently healthy individuals. As mentioned above, the story notes that while some experts recommend CT screening for coronary artery calcium deposits in order to increase the number of people receiving treatment to reduce the likelihood of a heart, others are skeptical about the real value of this type of screening for apparently health people. The reporter points out that many heart attacks strike people who do not have very high cholesterol levels or other indicators of elevated risk, but also that “no study has linked the use of CT scans with better patient outcomes.”   The potential cancer risk caused by CT screening for signs of heart disease is the point of this story. Also, by highlighting uncertainty about the benefits of the screening and recapping debate over the Texas law mandating coverage of the scans, the story emphasizes the importance of considering potential harms when setting public policy on screening tests. A longer story could have considered other potential harms, including the side effects of treatments prescribed based on screening tests. The story does a good job of summarizing the results of this study of potential cancer risk from CT screening. In addition, it outlines the positions of experts and organizations on the broader body of evidence on the use of CT scans to identify people who may have plaque buildups in their heart arteries. It would have been better if the reporter stated that the estimate was based on several assumptions, that it wasn’t a definitive point estimate, but just the center of a range, and that it was higher than earlier estimates. Readers still got the point that there is a cancer risk which needs to be considered. The story notes that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., but it also points out doubts about whether screening with CT scans for calcium buildup in heart arteries can reduce the toll. The story includes experts and advocates that represent the key perspectives in debate about CT screening for calcium deposits in coronary arteries. However, it does not include information on possible conflicts of interest. Although this story points out that alternative screening techniques are available and it makes reference to cholesterol, it does not include any details about the alternatives. The story says that the CT scanners used for this test are “all over the city” and included an estimate that in 2008 about 200,000 people around the country were scanned for calcium buildups in their coronary arteries. not in question in this story The story includes quotes from independent experts and other information that was not in the news release about the journal article.

SOLUTION: Warning sounded on heart scan law

PROBLEM: "America, the first lady says, has a pudgy problem. A significant percentage of its youths are too fat to fit in military uniforms. First lady Michelle Obama talked about the issue during her visit Wednesday to the Atlanta area to promote healthy eating. In a speech at Alpharetta’s North Point Community Church to highlight her ""Let’s Move"" healthy living campaign, Obama relayed a gaudy statistic. ""Believe it or not, right now, nearly 27 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds are too overweight to serve in our military,"" she said. Perhaps the military needs its own ""Biggest Loser"" contest for recruits. AJC PolitiFact Georgia had another thought. Should we believe the first lady? Obama’s claim apparently came from a study released last year that was titled -- aptly perhaps -- ""Too Fat to Fight."" It was released by more than 100 high-ranking retired military officials and other enlisted leaders who want high-calorie food and sugar-sweetened drinks removed from the nation’s public schools. That doesn’t include sweet tea, does it? The report said: ""over 27 percent of all Americans 17 to 24 years of age -- over nine million young men and women -- are too heavy to join the military if they want to do so."" The estimate was based on a 2005 national survey conducted by the Lewin Group. ""The estimate uses a weight-for-height cutoff that allows somewhat higher weights than the cutoff used by civilian organizations, such as the National Institutes of Health,"" the report said. In 2008, there were 11,472,200 Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 who were obese or overweight, the study reported, citing research by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were 29.8 million Americans between those ages, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That equals nearly 39 percent of Americans in that age range who were obese or overweight, an even higher percentage than those found in the ""Too Fat to Fight"" study who couldn’t serve in the military. Stay away from the cheeseburger, soldier! Military officials say this is serious business. ""The United States military stands ready to protect the American people, but if our nation does not help ensure that future generations grow up to be healthy and fit ... the health of our children and our national security are at risk,"" the report says. It also affects the federal budget. The military discharges about 1,200 recruits a year because they are not fit enough to serve. The military estimates it costs $50,000 to recruit and train a soldier. Add it up and that’s $60 million a year the federal government loses on enlistees too heavy to fight. The average American man is 5 foot 9 and weighs 195 pounds, according to the CDC. The average American woman is nearly 5 foot 4 and weighs 165 pounds. The mean height and weight for an 18-year-old man is 5 foot 9 and 166 pounds, according to the most recent data we could find. The mean height and weight and BMI for an 18-year-old woman is 5 foot 4 and 143.5 pounds. We couldn’t find data detailing the percentage of 18-year-olds who are overweight or obese. The CDC does report that 18 percent of 12- to 19-year-old Americans are obese. So what constitutes too fat to fight? Each military branch has its own rules. An 18-year-old, 5-foot-9 man who weighs more than 175 pounds would raise eyebrows for the Army, according to Military.com. The Army would be similarly concerned about a 5-foot-4, 18-year-old woman who weighs more than 133 pounds. For 40-year-old women that height, the Army would be worried if they weighed more than 145 pounds. The Air Force and Navy are a little easier on their enlistees. The Navy considers a 5-foot-9 man greater than 186 pounds overweight, and its maximum standard weight for a 5-foot-4 woman is 156 pounds. The Air Force says the maximum weight for a 5-foot-9 recruit is 186 pounds. A New York Times article in August highlighted the problem. One U.S. Army general said 4 percent of male recruits at one training center in 2000 failed the most basic fitness. By 2006, more than 20 percent of male recruits failed the same test. The percentages were higher for women. PolitiFact Georgia has tackled such weighty issues before. Before Thanksgiving, the American holiday of gastronomical gluttony, we checked a claim that Georgia has the second-highest rate of childhood obesity in the nation. Our finding? . According to the CDC figures, the mean American 18-year-old is close to being considered overweight but would still be accepted in the military in most cases. But about one in five of them is considered obese, the CDC says, and would be at least 15 to 20 pounds too heavy to fight. Based on the CDC study, we believe it’s reasonable to think that at least an additional 7 percent of America’s remaining 17- to 24-year-olds would have trouble meeting the military’s weight guidelines. The ""Too Fat to Fight"" study supports the theory that 27 percent of America’s youths couldn’t serve in the military."

SOLUTION:
More than one-quarter of America’s young adults are too fat to serve in the U.S. military