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 Input:
Paragraph: Children watch television in the living room of an apartment that is for sale for $4.5 million in New York in this January 13, 2011 file photo. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson This type of disguised advertising, including high exposure to sugary soft drinks on prime-time TV, is a major contributing factor to childhood obesity, according to the Yale University study released Tuesday. “It is a very subtle message that kids aren’t likely to get,” said Jennifer Harris, a co-author of the study and director of marketing initiatives at Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. The Yale study aimed to quantify how many product placements appear on prime-time TV and also determine how many of those that kids actually see. Researchers analyzed Nielsen media data from 2008 and found some 35,000 brand placements had appeared on prime-time television that year. Children tend to see about 14 traditional advertisements for food and beverages each day on television compared to one of these product placements, it said. But children don’t yet have the cognitive ability to understand that the popular soda, candy and snack brands they see on prime-time shows are a means of advertising. “It is even more difficult for younger children to understand this is advertising and that it is persuading them to do something that isn’t the best thing for them,” Harris said. Despite most major food companies pledging not to pay for unhealthy food ads in children’s programing, brand appearances in prime-time shows and sportscasts viewed by a wide audience, including kids, is exposing them to these products anyway, Harris said. Harris said Coca-Cola product placements on popular talent show American Idol was the most viewed brand. Children saw five times as many product placements as they did traditional, paid television commercials for Coca-Cola products. Roughly one-third of children in the United States are overweight or obese, said Harris. Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages puts kids at greater risk for obesity, but also long-term health problems like diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, she said. The study will appear in the September issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Claim: TV product placements termed junk food ad loophole.

Ex Output:
Companies that have pledged not to market unhealthy food and drinks directly to children may be turning to product placement on television shows instead of traditional ads to target youngsters, a new study showed.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "During his widely watched monologue about his newborn son’s recent medical emergency, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel offered a bit of praise for one group of Americans that doesn’t receive much love these days: members of Congress. ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Is that what happened? Basically, yes. Kimmel has a point that by approving the increase, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress rebuked Trump’s proposal and made clear a distaste for cutting NIH. Budget experts, however, may quibble that Kimmel oversimplified a bit on the numbers. First, some background. NIH conducts and disseminates research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention and cure of human diseases. It is a collection of 27 separate institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Explaining Kimmel’s comment starts with the release earlier this year of the Trump White House’s budget blueprint. While this proposal did not offer significant detail, it did include a cut for NIH. Specifically, the proposal would reduce spending for fiscal year 2018 by $5.8 billion compared to the fiscal 2017 level, through a range of reorganizations, consolidations and other changes. That’s short of a $6 billion cut, as Kimmel described it, but it’s pretty close. Fast-forward a few weeks to congressional negotiations over a bill to keep the government funded and avoid a government shutdown. Under the agreement reached by lawmakers, NIH would see a $2 billion increase in its budget over the five-month period of extended federal spending. (That's on top of the funding that was already expected.) According to news reports, the agreement provides an additional $400 million for Alzheimer’s disease and an additional $476 million for the National Cancer Institute, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and an additional $110 million for the BRAIN Initiative, which aims to map the human brain. Where Kimmel oversimplified matters is on the numbers. Specifically, the $2 billion increase did not directly replace Trump’s $5.8 billion proposed cut -- the two actions are distinct, since they targeted two different fiscal years. It would have been more accurate to say that the $2 billion increase directly rejected a separate Trump proposal to cut $1.2 billion from NIH for the remainder of fiscal 2017, which concludes at the end of September. (Remember, the $5.8 billion cut was to be for the 2018 fiscal year, not for the rest of 2017.) Indeed, the Trump proposal to cut NIH by $5.8 billion in 2018 is still officially on the table since Congress hasn’t yet acted on spending for 2018. The agreement Kimmel cited only addresses a five-month extension of federal spending. That said, Kimmel’s overarching point -- that Congress effectively rejected Trump’s proposal to cut NIH -- is on target, experts say. Steve Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed that while Kimmel oversimplified the numbers, he added that the talk show host’s ""overall message is accurate. The administration sought cuts and Congress boosted the funding."" And the decision to protect NIH in the budget has been supported not just by Democrats but also by key Republicans, including the chairmen of the two chambers’ health appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ""There is no appetite on the Hill for cutting NIH,"" Stan Collender, a budget expert at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP, told PolitiFact. Our ruling Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up." Claim: President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion.

Ex Output:
"Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The story does not mention any costs of the IUD or other treatments. The story quantifies the benefits of the progestin IUD in several ways. The story accurately notes that the study reported no adverse effects. The study’s authors reported only on adverse effects that were sufficient to require suspension of treatment. The story provides important details about the current study that help the reader evaluate the strength of the evidence. It even emphasizes that the new treatment approach is ""still uNPRoven"". The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of uterine cancer and is clear to point out that this treatment is only appropriate for a small subset of cases. The story quotes several independent experts and notes that none had a conflict of interest. The story compares the progestin IUD with systemic hormones and hysterectomy The progestin IUD is clearly available. The story clearly states that the Mirena IUD is not a new idea, but using it to treat early-stage endometrial cancer is relatively novel. Because the story quotes several independent experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information." Claim: IUD Proposed to Treat Uterine Cancer

Ex Output:

This story carefully reports on these results, with appropriate caveats that emphasize the small size of the study, the preliminary nature of the results and narrow patient population (those with pre-cancerous lesions or early-stage cancer). It quotes several independent experts and  discloses potential conflict of interest. The story could have been improved by mentioning the cost of the IUD and insurance coverage. The progestin-containing IUD (brand name Mirena) is a highly effective, well-tolerated form of birth control. Pathology studies have also shown that the IUD can cause reversal of cellular changes, known as hyperplasia, in the lining of the uterus (enodmetrium) that could later lead to certain kinds of endometrial cancer.Oral progestins are an established treatment for endometrial hyperplasia and have also been used in some cases of endometrial cancer in younger women. Targeting progesterone release directly to the uterine lining through the IUD presents a potential advance in effectiveness and tolerability of treatment, while preserving fertility. The primary treatment for endometrial cancer is hysterectomy, or surgical removal of the uterus. However, for some women, particularly younger women who wish to preserve their fertility, the idea of a non-surgical alternative, is welcome news. A small study was published in this week’s Annals of Oncology followed 20 women with hyperplasia and 14 women with early-stage endometrial cancer who had a progestin-IUD implanted. Almost all (95%) of those with hyperplasia experienced reversal, while about half (57%) of those with early-stage endometrial cancer did.