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.

Q: Paragraph: Dr. Chris Baumert, a family physician at RiverStone Health, told the Billings Gazette there’s been a steep increase in the number of cases of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has labeled the threat of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea one of the nation’s most urgent public health threats. The rate of gonorrhea cases in the United States has increased 75.2 percent since the historic low in 2009. Montana officials are projecting more than 1,000 cases of gonorrhea in the state this year, compared to 867 in 2017. ___ Information from: The Billings Gazette, http://www.billingsgazette.com Claim: STD cases increase in Montana.

A: Health officials say cases of sexually transmitted diseases have increased in Montana.
****
Q: Paragraph: The three western U.S. cities top the list of the 100 best towns for men in a new ranking compiled by Men’s Health magazine, while Charleston, West Virginia, Philadelphia and Birmingham, Alabama are considered the worst. “Anytime we do a best and worst city ranking and a city comes in at the very top like this, it immediately says to us they were consistently strong across the board in pretty much all of the 38 criteria that we looked at,” Men’s Health Executive Editor Matt Marion said. Boise, which jumped from fifth place last year, scored high marks for the physical and mental health of its residents, its low crime rate and short commuting times - an average of just 18 minutes. “Boise finishing number one was interesting to us because it is a city that would have finished in the top 20, but to come in right at the top is impressive,” Marion said. San Francisco, which consistently ranks high in the annual list, impressed with its small percentage of obese people, low number of smokers and highly educated and generally fit population. San Jose had very low death rates from cancer and heart disease, the lowest percentage of smokers in any of the 100 cities in the ranking, and not much crime. Plano, in Texas and Seattle rounded out the top five, followed by Burlington, Vermont, which dropped from the top spot last year. At the opposite end of the list, high cancer rates, violent crime and poor fitness levels assured Birmingham last place. In addition to Philadelphia and Charleston, West Virginia, the bottom five included Toledo, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri. New York ranked 33rd and Los Angeles was in the middle of the ranking. The magazine compiled the list, now in its 12th year, by ranking the cities on criteria ranging from the cost of living, number of jobless, obesity, crime and death rates, to air quality and the ratio of men to women. It used data from various sources including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the National Center for Health Statistics, state cancer registries and federal crime statistics. “The things that we do focus on ultimately are the ones that will make a difference in terms of whether or not you will be happy and healthy,” Marion said. The full list can be found here Claim: Idaho, California cities deemed best in U.S. for men.

A: U.S. men looking for the best place to find happiness, health and a good quality of life might consider heading to Boise, Idaho, or San Jose and San Francisco in northern California.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story didn’t discuss costs. And cost is a significant issue here. The AP story, by comparison, reported that “colonoscopy costs vary widely but typically exceed $1,000.” Adequate. The story said that almost 24% of Medicare enrollees in the study were re-examined within seven years “with no clear indication for the early repeated examination.” One of the weak points in this story – and in many of the stories we saw on this study, frankly – was that, while harms or complications were mentioned, they were not defined nor quantified. What harms? And how often do they occur? This story had a quote that “I don’t think we’ve educated [people] well enough” about the possible risks – but the story itself didn’t do so. The AP story, by comparison, at least mentioned “risks that occur more often with older patients, including complications from sedation, accidental performation of the colon and bleeding.” Adequate job. Nice touch commenting on the geographic variations seen in the Medicare analysis as well. The focus of this story was the opposite of disease-mongering. The story used an American Cancer Society spokesman as an independent source. In the last line, the story at least mentioned other approaches to colon cancer screening. The availability of colonoscopies is not in question. The relative novelty of this study was made clear in the story. It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Significant Number of Medicare Patients Getting Too-Frequent Colonoscopies

A:
Its few shortcomings could have been overcome easily with a little more space:  mentioning costs defining and taking a stab at quantifying harms. (Also fixing the typo in the final paragraph where colonoscopy was used when they meant colon cancer. We make ’em, too.) The story’s interview quotes nailed the issue:  Study author Goodwin “says the health community has been ‘a little too good in terms of selling the message of screening’ for cancer. ‘There really is an excellent acceptance of the benefits of cancer screening in this country, but I don’t think we’ve educated [people] well enough’ about the possible risks.”   “Durado Brooks, director of prostate and colorectal cancers at the American Cancer Society… says many physicians worry about missing a potential cancer and underestimate the risks of screening, which are even higher for older people with underlying health problems.”
****