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: Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question. This story did the best job of the three stories we reviewed in quantifying the potential benefits observed in the study. “Over the next five to six years, those intensive users suffered strokes at a rate of 0.3 percent per year. That compared with just over 0.5 percent among non-users, and 0.4 percent among moderate users. When the researchers factored in other diet habits, exercise levels and major risk factors for stroke — like high blood pressure and diabetes — heavy olive oil use was tied to 41 percent reduction in the odds of stroke.” There are better ways to try to communicate numbers of less than one percent. But we applaud the detail provided. Not applicable. Excellent. The story devoted almost 200 words to the potential limitations of such an observational study. Also a clear description of the cohort design. No disease-mongering of stroke in the story. The story included strong input from a researcher who wrote in an editorial on the study. The story at least mentioned other factors that could be at play – “no single food is consumed in isolation, he points out in his editorial. Olive oil is one part of the Mediterranean diet that has been tied to heart benefits. The diet also boasts plenty of fruits and vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fish and moderate amounts of red wine.” Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question. The story attempted to put the new finding into the context of past research on olive oil and the Mediterranean diet. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Olive oil lovers show lower stroke risk

A: This story explored the nature of an observational study about the stroke-reducing risks of olive oil. The story appropriately discussed other possible reasons for the findings and why a clinical trial is stronger evidence. With so much news coverage touting an apparent benefit from olive oil in this study (CBS had a headline about “huge decline in stroke risk”), it is refreshing to see so much time and space given to a clear-eyed evaluation of the evidence as this story provided.
****
Q: Paragraph: The Democrat-led Senate and Assembly voted Thursday to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to cite religious beliefs to forego getting their child the vaccines required for school enrollment. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the measure minutes after the final vote. The law takes effect immediately but will give unvaccinated students up to 30 days after they enter a school to show they’ve had the first dose of each required immunization. With New York’s move, similar exemptions are still allowed in 45 states, though lawmakers in several of them have introduced their own legislation to eliminate the waiver. The issue is hotly contested and debate around it has often been emotional, pitting cries that religious freedom is being curtailed against warnings that public health is being endangered. After the vote in the Assembly, many of those watching from the gallery erupted in cries of “shame!” One woman yelled obscenities down to the lawmakers below. The debate has only intensified with this year’s measles outbreak , which federal officials recently said has surpassed 1,000 illnesses, the highest in 27 years. “I’m not aware of anything in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran or anything else that suggests you should not get vaccinated,” said Bronx Democrat Jeffrey Dinowitz, the bill’s Assembly sponsor. “If you choose to not vaccinate your child, therefore potentially endangering other children ... then you’re the one choosing not to send your children to school.” Hundreds of parents of unvaccinated children gathered at New York’s Capitol for the vote to protest. Stan Yung, a Long Island attorney and father, said his Russian Orthodox religious views and health concerns about vaccines will prevent him from vaccinating his three young children. His family, he said, may consider leaving the state. “People came to this country to get away from exactly this kind of stuff,” Yung said ahead of Thursday’s votes. Supporters of the bill say religious beliefs about vaccines shouldn’t eclipse scientific evidence that they work, noting the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that states have the right to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. During the Assembly’s floor debate, supporters brought up scourges of the past that were defeated in the U.S. through vaccines. “I’m old enough to have been around when polio was a real threat,” said Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, D-Manhattan. “I believe in science.... Your personal opinions, which may be based on junk science, do not trump the greater good.” Supporters also suggest some parents may be claiming the religious exemption for their children even though their opposition is actually based on scientifically discredited claims about the dangers of vaccines. The bill would not change an existing state exemption given to children who cannot have vaccines for medical reasons, such as a weakened immune system. Cuomo told reporters on Wednesday that he believes public health — and the need to protect those who cannot get vaccinated because for medical reasons — outweighs the concerns about religious freedom. “I understand freedom of religion,” he said. “I have heard the anti-vaxxers’ theory, but I believe both are overwhelmed by the public health risk.” The current measles outbreak has renewed concern about the exemptions in many states. The nation last saw as many cases in 1992, when more than 2,200 were reported. The majority of cases are from outbreaks in New York in Orthodox Jewish communities. California removed personal belief vaccine exemptions for children in both public and private schools in 2015, after a measles outbreak at Disneyland sickened 147 people and spread across the U.S. and into Canada. Maine ended its religious exemption earlier this year. Mississippi and West Virginia also do not allow religious exemptions. Once common in the U.S., measles became rare after vaccination campaigns that started in the 1960s. A decade ago, there were fewer than 100 cases a year. Claim: New York ends religious exemption to vaccine mandates.

A: New York eliminated the religious exemption to vaccine requirements for schoolchildren Thursday, as the nation’s worst measles outbreak in decades prompts states to reconsider giving parents ways to opt out of immunization rules.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story noted that aspirin is sold for pennies a pill. The printer version of the story reports only relative risk reductions, ignoring the important point that most colorectal cancer patients in this study survived for many years whether or not they took aspirin after their diagnosis; thus it exaggerates the potential benefits of adding aspirin to the treatment mix. Specifically, the story discussed whether aspirin should get credit for “beating cancer,” although there is nothing in the study about aspirin being a cure. To put the results in context, the story should have mentioned that the 10-year survival rates were 69 percent for those not taking aspirin and 74 percent for those who did take aspirin. (PLEASE NOTE:  ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION FIGURES APPEARED IN A WEB VERSION OF THE SIDEBAR BUT WE CURRENTLY REVIEW ONLY WHAT APPEARS IN PRINT.) PLEASE NOTE:  WE MISSED THE FACT THAT A SIDEBAR TO THE MAIN STORY DID INCLUDE INFORMATION ON GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING. SO WE HAVE CHANGED THIS GRADE TO SATISFACTORY. The story includes several caveats warning that the results of the study are not definitive. It pointed out some of the limitations inherent in this sort of observational study. It also pointed out that a randomized controlled trial would be needed in order to actually prove that aspirin fights cancer. However, the story highlighted the sharply lower rate of colorectal disease deaths among patients who had a type of colorectal cancer that overproduces the COX-2 enzyme and took aspirin after diagnosis… without mentioning either the wide uncertainty in the number or that the overwhelming majority of patients survived for many years, whether or not they took aspirin. (PLEASE NOTE:  THIS INFORMATION DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE PRINT VERSION BUT WAS INCLUDED IN AN ONLINE VERSION OF THE STORY.) The story did not discuss the prevalence or consequences of colorectal cancer, so we judge this criterion to be not applicable in this case. While the story included a quote from a physician who was not connected to the study and even though this study was funded by public money, the story failed to explain what expertise the independent source has or why his opinion was relied upon. Nonetheless, we give this story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. This story does not mention that the overwhelming majority of patients receiving standard therapy for colorectal cancer survive for many years, thus hyping the potential benefits of aspirin. (THE ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION FIGURES DID NOT APPEAR IN THE PRINT VERSION OF THE STORY BUT DID APPEAR IN AN ONLINE VERSION. WE CURRENTLY REVIEW ONLY WHAT APPEARS IN PRINT.) Aspirin is widely available. However, the study focused on the COX-2 inhibitory action of aspirin and the authors suggested that rather than aspirin becoming a standard part of colon cancer treatment, future treatment might rely on a drug specifically designed to use this pathway to fight cancer. By using the term ‘revolutionary’ to describe the study results, this story ignores the many years of research into the potentially beneficial effects of aspirin on colorectal cancer. The story included a physician not connected with the study and the reporter apparently interviewed one of the study authors. So it clearly did not rely solely or largely on a news release. Claim: ‘Revolutionary’ use for aspirin? May help colon cancer patients

A:
(PLEASE NOTE:  THIS IS AN AMENDED VERSION OF THE REVIEW THAT WE FIRST POSTED HOURS AGO. THE REPORTER HAS POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION WE FELT WAS LACKING ACTUALLY APPEARED IN A SIDEBAR TO THE STORY – A SIDEBAR THAT WE MISSED. SO WE HAVE AMENDED THIS REVIEW AND UPGRADED ITS SCORE. WE NOTE THAT THE REPORTER DID INCLUDE ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION FIGURES IN A VERSION OF THE SIDEBAR THAT APPEARED ONLY ON THE USA TODAY WEBSITE. CURRENTLY WE ONLY REVIEW WHAT APPEARS IN THE PRINT VERSION. WE NOTE THE REPORTER’S EFFORT TO GET THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INTO THE STORY IN SOME FORMAT UNDER TIME PRESSURE. BUT READERS OF THE NEWSPAPER – NOT OF THE  WEBSITE – RECEIVED ONLY THE INFORMATION WE CRITIQUED. OUR APOLOGIES TO USA TODAY FOR INITIALLY MISSING THE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THE PRINTED SIDEBAR.) USA Today gives readers more actual information about the potential use of aspirin to treat colorectal cancer than CBS did in their story which we also reviewed. The USA Today story includes a number of caveats and pointed out limitations of the study, but it also hypes the findings by using the word “revolutionary” in the headline and by emphasizing relative reductions in death rates, rather than giving a true overall view of how patients fare after getting a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. While the study is indeed newsworthy, because it analyses a powerful set of data collected over decades, it is a continuation of a long line of investigations into the potential effects of aspirin on colorectal cancer, not some startling break with history.
****