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 does not discuss the costs of annual mammography screening, or even provide a range of costs. The story does not discuss any health care policy cost repercussions of breast cancer screening recommendations. The story does not discuss the cost of unnecessary biopsies or other treatments for women who have a false positive diagnosis via mammography (greater in women 40-49). The story highlights the 26 percent difference in breast cancer death rates, but fails to include any information about the overall risk. The researchers reported that based on their results you would have to screen 1252 women for a decade in order to prevent one breast cancer death. In other words, for the remaining 1251 women, a decade of mammograms did not alter their breast cancer mortality. Although this story does not go into detail about the potential harms of screening mammography, it does include comments from independent experts who point out that the scans do lead to the diagnosis and treatment of women whose tumors would never have become life-threatening. This story briefly explains key features of this study. It also includes critiques from independent experts who note limitations of the study design and analysis – although the statement that the researchers ""did not compare the broader breast cancer death rates"" in the counties"" is unclear. Overall, there is much more the Times could have done to analyze methodological questions surrounding the Swedish study. (For example, read our blog on this matter.) Interviews with Peter Gotzsche and with Donald Berry saved the story. But so much more could have been done – another reason why more than 471 words should have been devoted to the reporting. The story does not discuss the prevalence of breast cancer among women in their 40s. That omission would not usually be considered disease mongering, but since surveys indicate most people overestimate the risk of breast cancer among women in their 40s, failing to mention the actual rates leaves those misconceptions intact. The story does include comments from experts who raise concerns about overdiagnosis; that is, the number of breast tumors discovered that are not actually life-threatening. A strong point of this story is the inclusion of comments from several independent experts with a variety of perspectives on the meaning of the latest study results. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, but the researchers did not list any in their journal article. Although not discussed in detail, the story does mention that the United States Preventive Services Task Force has questioned the value of screening mammograms for women younger than 50, thus implying that not being screened is an option to consider. The availability of mammography was not explicitly addressed, but we can’t criticize the story for that. Instead, we give a Not Applicable score for this criterion. This story could have done a better job explaining how this study – and its methods – are different from earlier research on the topic.But two things lead us to give it a barely satisfactory score. First, there was a brief attempt to mention the unique ""circumstances"" of the Swedish study. Second, the story also pointed out that there’s a historical ideological pattern in the study authors’ work – noting that they ""have long been advocates of mammography screening."" It’s clear that the story was not based on a news release." Claim: Mammogram Benefit Seen for Women in Their 40s

Output: This story includes strong comments from independent experts that can help readers get a broader understanding of the results of a study that compared breast cancer death rates among women in their 40s who lived in areas of Sweden that did or did not offer routine mammography. However, because the story reports only the percentage difference in death rates, without including absolute numbers or the number of women who need to be screened to prevent one death, readers may get the impression that the effect of mammography was larger than what the researchers actually reported. People commonly overestimate the risk of breast cancer death among women in their 40s. By not including any information about the absolute numbers of deaths among women in this study or in the population at large, the story misses an opportunity to correct common misconceptions.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "There was no discussion of costs of vegetable consumption. Although this could be considered general knowledge, mention of typical costs for vegetables would have been a nice addition. The research on which this story was based compared increasing amounts of vegetable (or fruit and vegetable, or fruit) intake with intake of 0 – 1.1 servings per day. The study actually only found a statistically significant improvement in the rate of decline for individuals eating 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with “more than two servings of vegetables per day"" – which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing 5 years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline   It would have been helpful to provide some idea of the difference this actually represents. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. This story was not actually about a treatment per se but rather about the possible association between an eating pattern and age-related decline in function. This story reported on a prospective study of cognitive decline in older individuals. Although it did not explicitly mention the nature of the study design, the story included the caveat that the findings don’t prove that vegetables reduce mental decline, but add to mounting evidence pointing in that direction. The story would have been stronger if it had included information on the methodology for assessing dietary intake. No obvious elements of disease-mongering The story used several different sources. This story did not discuss other means to delay or diminish the rate of cognitive decline with age. This story reported on a study of vegetable and fruit consumption in older adults in the Chicago area – vegetables and fruits that are clearly widely available. The story begins, ""New research on vegetables and aging gives mothers another reason to say 'I told you so.' ""  Clearly, this is not a new idea, but the story is about new evidence. Because the story used multiple sources, it does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release." Claim: Study: Vegetables may keep brains young

Output: This story presented the results from a recent study which found a slower decline in mental sharpness in older people who ate 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day than in people who ate 0 – 1.1 servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with “more than two servings of vegetables per day” – which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing five years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline. It would have been more helpful to frame for the reader the amount of mental decline typically seen in the age group studied, what the decline represents in terms of function, and the amount of potential for benefit to be gained through increased vegetable consumption. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. It was useful that the story pointed out that the research found an association between vegetable intake but not for fruit intake. Although the standard wisdom is to eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, this story provides a distinction between these two for readers to consider. It would have been useful for the story to provide a little more clarity about the definition of ‘vegetable’ for the reader. This study was interesting in that, unlike the USDA, it did not include potatoes in its vegetable count. In addition, it should be pointed out that whereas the FDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends the equivalent of four to 13 servings a day of vegetables and fruit in a typical 2,000 calorie diet, the benefit in this study was seen at a much lower level –  2.5 servings/day of vegetable consumption.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia recently unveiled a video that uses a montage of numbers to criticize Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s stance on funding for sex education programs. Among the claims: ""$400,000 -- approximate cost to Virginians to fund ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. $2.5 million -- federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs Virginia lost due to McDonnell’s political agenda."" Are NARAL’s numbers and claims correct? We asked Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, for sources of the information. Let’s start with the statement that abstinence-only education costs the state $400,000. Keene said that’s a reference to match money Virginia provided to receive a federal grant for abstinence-only sex education. The payment allows Virginia to participate in the Title V Abstinence Education Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program promotes abstinence until marriage to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Last September, HHS announced Virginia would receive an $889,973 grant for abstinence education for fiscal 2010. States have until Sept. 30, 2012, to spend the money. The federal cash pays for 57 percent of the cost of abstinence programs approved by HHS. Participating states are required to provide the remaining 43 percent of cost. The match money can come from a variety of sources including from state coffers, foundation dollars and in-kind donations. Virginia was required to come up with about $670,000 to match the grant. Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the state is paying $382,688 towards the match. The rest is coming from in-kind contributions and community organizations awarded contracts to implement the sexual abstinence programs. So NARAL is near the bull’s-eye in claiming Virginia is paying an ""approximate"" $400,000 for abstinence-until marriage programs. Caldwell noted that the state received federal abstinence education funding under previous governors going back to the 1990s. But in 2007, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine cut the state’s funding for abstinence-only education. McDonnell reversed that decision last year. At the same time, McDonnell chose not to seek money from another federal grant program that  teaches students about contraception in addition to abstinence -- the Personal Responsibility Education Program. Unlike the federal abstinence-only money, the comprehensive sex education grant requires no match. McDonnell’s refusal to participate drew criticism from NARAL and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia. That brings us to the second part of NARAL’s claim, that Virginia lost $2.5 million in federal money for comprehensive sex education under McDonnell. As a source, NARAL cited an HHS 49-page announcement of the PREP grant, which was created under the 2010 health care reform law. The HHS synopsis shows Virginia was estimated to receive a total of $2,593,487 during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. That’s close to NARAL’s number. But NARAL is greatly understating its case. States that didn’t apply for the grant in fiscal 2010 and 2011 are not eligible to seek funding for the 2012-2014 fiscal years. So Virginia potentially missed out on much more than $2.6 million. Estimates for 2012-2014 allotments are not available, said Kenneth Wolfe, an HHS spokesman. Let’s recap:  A video by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said that abstinence-only programs pursued under McDonnell have cost the state about $400,000. Meanwhile, the group says the state missed out on about $2.5 million in federal funding for comprehensive sex education. It’s  the state spent about $400,000 for a federal abstinence-only grant. And it’s  that the McDonnell administration did not apply for a comprehensive sex education grant that would have sent almost $2.6 million to Virginia during fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Because Virginia is now ineligible to apply for the comprehensive grant through 2014, the state will wind up declining a much greater amount of money than NARAL claimed. We won’t penalize NARAL for understating its case. Its statement is ." Claim: "Virginia spends $400,000 on abstinence programs while losing $2.5 million in federal funds due to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s ""political agenda."


Output: NARAL says McDonnell's agenda costs state federal sex ed money