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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 – 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that ‘Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate’, it didn’t actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While there may be evidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn’t any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector – one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can’t be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all
[EX A]: This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn’t my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinical experts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "As part of his campaign to become Missouri’s 56th governor, Chris Koster tweeted a statistic about something he has been working to accomplish during his time as attorney general: closing the tobacco loophole. In his tweet, Koster called upon the legislature to #FixTheLoophole, which he says will save Missourians $50 million. The so-called tobacco loophole is money the state hopes to get from five big tobacco companies if it takes a tougher line with smaller ones. We looked into whether $50 million is really on the line. Tobacco background We reached out to the Koster campaign to find out what closing the loophole entailed. We heard back from David Turner, a spokesman for the Missouri Democratic Party. Turner told us that the tobacco loophole arose in 1998 as part of a master settlement agreement between the attorneys general of 46 states, along with Washington, D.C., and five U.S. territories, and the five largest tobacco companies in the U.S. The states had sued the tobacco companies for selling cigarettes which they knew caused cancer, emphysema and other diseases. The attorneys general wanted to recover the cost of caring for those people. The settlement said that in exchange for dropping the lawsuits, the states would receive roughly $10 billion dollars a year, essentially indefinitely. The annual payment to Missouri is about $130 million. As part of the deal, Missouri passed a law that required all nonparticipating tobacco companies to pay into an escrow fund. This was done in part to ensure that small cigarette makers didn’t gain a market advantage because they would be able to sell cigarettes at reduced prices. But there was a catch. If a state failed to ""diligently enforce"" the requirement that small companies make escrow payments, and the big tobacco companies lost a set amount of market share as a result, that state would lose a portion of its tobacco settlement money. According to a state auditor, that’s exactly what happened. The big tobacco companies lost an 8 percent market share from 1997 to 2003. As a result, the companies sued Missouri and other states for violating the settlement. In 2013, an arbitration panel found that in Missouri, of the 432 million cigarettes sold by nonparticipating manufacturers in 2002, companies made escrow payments on only $102 million. The panel ruled against Missouri and five other states, meaning the Show-Me State had to pay back $70 million from its 2014 payment. In February, Koster negotiated an agreement with the tobacco companies to return $50 million to Missouri — on the condition the state tighten the rules on the smaller cigarette makers. Which brings us to the loophole. Under current Missouri law, the smaller companies can trim the amount they pay into the escrow fund. Missouri is the only state that has yet to take steps to prevent this. The loophole The way escrow payments are calculated, small tobacco companies can get most of the money they pay back if they restrict their sales to only a few states. In order to close the loophole — and return $50 million to Missouri — the legislature would have to pass Senate Bill 1096. The bill would require all nonparticipating manufacturers to either join the master settlement or be subject to modified escrow rules which prevent the companies from gaming the system to keep their escrow money. SB 1096 has supporters on both sides of the aisle, but it is not without its opponents. Small tobacco companies have been fighting different versions of the bill for more than a decade, calling it a tax on their products and a move on the part of big tobacco to earn more market share at their expense. SB 1096 has yet to pass either chamber of the General Assembly, and the consequences are already being felt. Because the bill failed to pass before April 15, Missouri can no longer receive the $50 million for 2016. In order to receive the money in 2017, the bill must be signed by Gov. Jay Nixon by June 3. Taxpayer impact The loophole is the source of Koster’s $50 million figure, but will recouping the loss actually save taxpayers money? It certainly has cost the state. In October, Nixon withheld $46.1 million of the state's budget, relying on the passage of SB 1096 to fill the gap. Turner said that money would have gone to the Mental Health Department and the Department of Social Services, among others. For these programs to be maintained at their initial levels, Turner explained, taxpayers would be forced to cover the money lost in the tobacco arbitration. Gaining the $50 million dollars would allow those programs to remain uncut without costing the taxpayers any additional money. All things being equal, if the bill passes, taxpayers would win no matter what the state does with the money. If it’s spent on services, citizens get the benefit of $50 million worth of services. If the state cuts spending and lowers taxes, they save money when they file their taxes in April. And that’s just in 2017. If the loophole isn’t closed, Missouri could lose additional money in the years to come. The big tobacco companies have begun arbitration concerning Missouri’s diligent enforcement of the escrow laws in 2004. If an arbitration panel were to find against Missouri again, the state could be forced to forfeit more money. If SB 1096 passes, the companies would not seek arbitration for any of the years 2004 to 2014, per Koster’s agreement. Our ruling Koster said that closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50 million. The tobacco settlement and the arbitration that followed is complicated, but ultimately, Koster did reach a settlement to return $50 million dollars to Missouri. If the legislature passes SB 1096 by June 3, that money would come to the state in 2017. If it doesn’t, the state could potentially be on the hook for even more. Any money the state received would be dollars that taxpayers would not have to provide. Taxpayers could get $50 million worth of services or $50 million in tax cuts. Either way, they come out ahead." Claim: Closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50,000,000
[EX A]: Our ruling Koster said that closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50 million. Koster said that closing the tobacco loophole would save Missouri taxpayers $50 million. The tobacco settlement and the arbitration that followed is complicated, but ultimately, Koster did reach a settlement to return $50 million dollars to Missouri. If the legislature passes SB 1096 by June 3, that money would come to the state in 2017. If it doesn’t, the state could potentially be on the hook for even more. The tobacco settlement and the arbitration that followed is complicated, but ultimately, Koster did reach a settlement to return $50 million dollars to Missouri. If the legislature passes SB 1096 by June 3, that money would come to the state in 2017. If it doesn’t, the state could potentially be on the hook for even more. Any money the state received would be dollars that taxpayers would not have to provide. Taxpayers could get $50 million worth of services or $50 million in tax cuts. Either way, they come out ahead. Any money the state received would be dollars that taxpayers would not have to provide. Taxpayers could get $50 million worth of services or $50 million in tax cuts. Either way, they come out ahead.rue.rue.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl hasn’t announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012. But as Republicans step up their criticism of him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign. Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohl’s department and grocery store chains. In remarks to reporters in Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of today’s campaigns. He said ""people don’t like anybody in public life"" because of ""venomous"" attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in ""hardly at all."" Then he got specific: ""I’ve been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I don’t get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But that’s just my style."" So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning? That’s quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out. Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates’ strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohl’s campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter. Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns’ conduct, so we’ll limit our review to that. One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes ""negative"" campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim. ""Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what he’s done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them,"" Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. ""He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office."" Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl. ""He never did anything negative in his campaign. He’ll have the job as long as he wants the job,"" said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000. ""Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner,"" said Robert Lorge, Kohl’s 2006 rival. Fair enough. Those were landslide wins. What about the earlier contests? 1988: Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. He frustrated his rivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads. At the time, Earl’s media consultant David Axelrod charged that Kohl’s popular slogan -- ""Nobody’s Senator But Yours"" -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president. Earl attacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl ""desperate"" and guilty of misrepresentation. Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiter close the gap to just a few pointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks. Engeleiter herself told us she has ""nothing but positive recollections"" of a ""pretty cordial campaign."" She also praised Kohl’s dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldn’t call Kohl’s primary race negative. Regarding Kohl’s slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  ""Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours.'"" Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning. 1994: In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little time aggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an ""extreme conservative"" and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welch’s no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as ""extreme."" According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge. Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was ""nastier than I expected."" Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched a rare TV ad that focused on an opponent by name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohl’s record. One said that ""fellow Republicans"" had criticized Welch’s tactics -- something deemed misleading in a Milwaukee Journal fact check. The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a ""multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign."" Kohl said it was Welch who went negative. The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of ""religion bashing,"" Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that "" Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected."" So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling. Looking back, though, Welch’s campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesn’t have strong opinions about the back and forth. ""I don’t know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election,"" he told us. He didn’t recall the ""distort"" ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the ""extreme"" charge a negative attack. Kohl, Maxwell recalled, ""just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election."" (We could not reach Welch for comment). Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes. Lamke said the ""extreme"" charge by Kohl was ""within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb."" Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as ""leans Republican."" We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a ""tame"" response ad -- ""not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesn’t like."" Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madison’s Ken Goldstein said Kohl’s ad met the academic research definition of ""negative"" because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohl’s campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent. So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively? Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner. The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 ""distort"" spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohl’s campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohl’s aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an ""extremist"" was arguably negative. Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions. ." Claim: I’ve been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning.
[EX A]:
Sen. Herb Kohl says he’s never done any negative campaigning