TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: A deadly fungal disease devastated amphibians in Central America more than a decade ago, quieting some mountain streams. But new research shows evolution may have saved the day — and the frogs. In El Cope, Panama, at least four species disappeared including the red-striped Rio San Juan robber frog. Four other species lost at least 88 percent of their population from a disease-causing fungus that hit Panama hard from 2004 to 2007. The fungus has also been blamed for wiping out amphibian populations in California’s Sierra Nevada and parts of Australia. In the last few years, croaks have been heard in once quiet Panama streams. The critters are by no means recovered since they are still infected with the fungus, but they are alive and growing in numbers, according to a new study in Thursday’s journal Science . “It’s so easy to lose hope when you’ve walked the same stretch of stream year after year, hoping to see a hint of the amazing diversity you once saw there,” study co-author Corinne Richards-Zawacki, a University of Pittsburgh biologist, said in an email. “So you can imagine how good it feels to be able to report some good news from the field.” The recovery is not everywhere and it’s at best modest, cautioned lead author Jamie Voyles, a disease ecologist at the University of Nevada, Reno. One of the frogs making the most noticeable comeback is the hard-to-catch rocket frog, named because it is so quick, she said. Voyles and Richards-Zawacki wanted to find out why the amphibians survived. They initially figured the disease weakened. But after testing old and new disease samples on frogs, they found the disease was as dangerous as ever. To their surprise, the frogs and toads were fighting back better. The fungal disease attacks their skin secretions and recently the frogs showed a two- to five-fold improvement in the amphibians’ ability to limit the fungus’ growth. The disease is still there, but it does less damage, Voyles said. While this research is important, the findings aren’t too surprising because past studies have shown that as bad as disease outbreaks get, they play a tiny role in species extinction, said Andrew Blaustein at Oregon State University, who wasn’t part of the study. Evolution allows species to resist completely succumbing to the nastiest diseases. “So, yes there is hope,” Blaustein said in an email. ___ Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears . His work can be found here . ___ The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: A ribbit of hope: Panama frogs hop back after nasty disease.

SOLUTION: After years of silence, the rhythmic dee-dee-deeps of frogs and toads are returning in parts of Panama.

PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: 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.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Bolstered by Trump’s appointment of two conservative justices, the nine-member court could soon begin to pare back abortion rights, starting with a major case from Louisiana that is one of several similar pending appeals. The addition of Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch could alter the conservative-majority court’s approach to abortion. Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed abortion rights in key rulings in 1992 and 2016. Jennifer Popik, director of federal legislation for the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, said her group hopes Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will “interpret the Constitution more narrowly” on abortion rights. In Congress, legislation backed by Trump’s fellow Republicans already has been introduced to restrict late-term abortions along the lines discussed by Trump, but there are not enough votes to pass it given Democratic opposition. Abortion is one of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics. Trump, whose abortion views have been fluid over the years, has emerged as an advocate of more restrictions, a position that appeals to his conservative voter base. His address on Tuesday night in some ways kicked off his 2020 re-election campaign. His call for new limits on late-term abortions was welcomed by anti-abortion activists. When he ran for president in 2016, Trump said he would appoint anti-abortion judges who would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to abortion and legalized the procedure nationwide. In his State of the Union address, Trump criticized a New York law and legislation in Virginia that would in limited circumstances allow for late-term abortions when the mother’s health is endangered. “To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb,” Trump said during the speech, without specifying details. A White House spokeswoman said Trump backs legislation pending in Congress that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs abortion rights, called Trump’s comments “smoke and mirrors.”   “This is really just a distraction. The goal is not to end a certain class of abortion. His goal is to end all abortions,” Dalven added. There is no nationwide law setting a specific limit on when in a pregnancy abortions can be performed. Each state has its own laws, with conservative states imposing restrictions and liberal states more broadly backing abortion rights. Republicans have embraced the federal legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks. But past bills have failed to overcome Democratic opposition, even when Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. With the House now led by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans, there is even less chance of such legislation passing, though Republicans said on Wednesday they would press for a vote. As of the end of last year, 17 states had laws banning abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights. No states categorically ban all late-term abortions in all circumstances and 43 states have laws that impose at least some restrictions, it said. The Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed by the high court in 1992, concluded that abortion could not be banned before the fetus is viable, but gave states leeway to impose greater restrictions on it toward the end of a pregnancy. In 2007, the court upheld a federal restriction on “partial-birth abortions” that involve a physician removing most of the fetus intact rather than dismembering it. In its most recent major abortion ruling, the Supreme Court - with Kennedy joining the court’s four liberals in the majority - in 2016 struck down regulations in Texas that abortion rights advocates said would shutter many clinics. The Louisiana case pending before the justices resembles the Texas case. It involves a requirement that doctors who perform abortions have a difficult-to-obtain arrangement called “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. The provision was challenged by abortion rights advocates. If the court rejects their request, it would represent a shift away from the 2016 ruling following Kennedy’s retirement. The court will also decide soon whether to hear Indiana’s bid to revive a state ban on abortions performed due to the sex or race of the fetus or evidence of disability. Indiana this week asked the Supreme Court to hear another abortion case concerning a law to require fetal ultrasounds before abortions take place. Claim: On abortion, Trump agenda likely leads to Supreme Court, not Congress.

SOLUTION:
President Donald Trump urged lawmakers in his State of the Union address to put new limits on abortion, but partisan division in the U.S. Congress means the Supreme Court likely will set the agenda on the divisive issue, as it has for decades.