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: "It’s true that dimethylpolysiloxane is used in household silicon   products and as a food ingredient by restaurants like McDonalds. But  studies have shown that dimethylpolysiloxane (also called   polymethylsiloxane) is safe for human consumption in limited amounts. Dimethylpolysiloxane is used as an anti-foaming agent that’s added to   deep fried foods like French fries and chicken nuggets at restaurants   like  McDonald’s,  Wendy’s,  Taco Bell,  KFC,  Chick-fil-A and  Five Guys. McDonald’s  explained:  “The oil we use for our fried menu items, like our chicken McNuggets, world famous fries and crispy chicken sandwiches, does contain a small amount of dimethylpolysiloxane. This is an FDA-approved ingredient that helps prevent the splattering of oil as foods are cooked.”  The FDA last  approved dimethylpolysiloxane as a food additive in 1998. The   move was requested by the Dow Corning Corporation, which  describes itself as a “global leader in silicon-based technology and innovation.” The FDA placed a number of  limitations on the use of dimethylpolysiloxane as a “secondary direct food additive” for human consumption:  “Limitations: 10 parts per million in food, or at such level in a  concentrated food that when prepared as directed on the labels, the food in its ready-for-consumption state will have not more than 10 parts per million except as follows: Zero in milk; 110 parts per million in dry gelatin dessert mixes labeled for use whereby no more than 16 parts per million is present in the ready-to-serve dessert; 250 parts per million in salt labeled for cooking purposes, whereby no more than 10 parts per million is present in the cooked food.”  A number of health agencies have reviewed the use dimethylpolysiloxane as a food additive over the years, and those studies haven’t linked it to any harmful side effects. The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals carried out a review in 2011 that found it had no adverse affect on the   immune system and was “rapidly excreted unchanged in the feces” when ingested by humans. The World Health Organization also explored potential long-term consequences of dimethylpolysiloxane exposure in lab rats. It concluded:  “Studies have been carried out on silicone fluids with and without the addition of silica. The presence of silica did not raise any toxicological problems nor did it affect the results of the experiment in a significant way. Short-term studies have been carried out in several species, including one study on an emulsion of dimethylpolysiloxane. An adequate long-term study with dimethylpolysiloxane has been carried out in the rat. None of these studies has revealed any significant toxicity.”  Dimethylpolysiloxane is also used as an inactive ingredient in over-the-counter drugs, lotions and hygiene products. It can be  found in makeup, nail polish, contact lens solution, sunscreen, deodorant and shampoo." Claim:  Dimethylpolysiloxane is used in silicone caulks and adhesives — as well   as in McDonald’s fries and other menu options at chain restaurants   across the country.

A: McDonald’s Fries Contain Dimethylpolysiloxane
****
Q: Paragraph: We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, “It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ.” It also says, “The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome.” The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, “There were no false-negative results with the new test.” We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study’s findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these: “In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won’t replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies,” says Mark I. Evans, MD,  director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. “The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndrome…Down syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance.” The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it’s a screening test. The distinction – and the significance of that – could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is “not ready for prime time….in a year or two, this test may be available.” The story does not establish the test’s novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, “In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 3–5% of the population.” This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way:  What is already known on this topic: Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA Its diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds: Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.” The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome

A: This thoroughly reported and carefully written story avoids giving pregnant women false hope of an easier way to detect genetic anomalies while still presenting some compelling information about a new blood test. Pregnancy can be anxiety inducing because of the sheer number of tests already required of women: frequent blood tests, ultrasounds, and amniocentesis in many cases. Add to that the barrage of stories about the way diet and environmental conditions may be affecting in utero development at any given point and one can understand why women might want a simpler solution to find out whether their child might have a genetic disorder. Overall, we think if more stories approached screening the way this story did there would be fewer people demanding the latest over-hyped test from their doctor. This is a “hope for the future” level test that may be inching its way to market. It’s not available now and won’t be in the immediate future – and the story makes that clear.
****
Q: Paragraph: There are 16,481 fewer beds in hospitals since 2010. This is in the right ballpark, but it doesn’t seem to be the best comparison. It seems to compare the number of beds at different times of the year, but the number available fluctuates seasonally. Comparing July-September in 2010 and 2017, the decrease in beds available overnight in England is closer to 13,200. 66 A&E and maternity wards have been closed. We don’t know, as this information isn’t collected nationally. In 2014, there were reportedly plans to close or downgrade 66 in England, but while some have been, others have stayed open. 103 NHS walk-in centres have closed or been downgraded since 2010. We don’t know exactly, as this information isn’t collected centrally. Research from an NHS regulator and from campaign group 38 Degrees suggests more than 90 have been closed or downgraded. 60 ambulance stations have closed since 2010. We don’t know how many ambulance stations have closed since 2010 as national figures on this aren’t regularly published. 1,000 GP practices have closed since 2010. There are around 1,000 fewer GP practices in England in 2017 than in 2010. Some practices may have merged together, rather than closing completely, but we don’t know how many have done so. A&E four hour targets have been missed more than 10 million times since 2010. Correct. Between 2010/11 and 2017/18, around 12 million A&E attendances in England took over four hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. The number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E is up 2,700% since 2010. Correct (although not all patients will necessarily have been waiting in A&E). In 2011/12, 120 patients in England waited 12 hours between the decision to admit them to emergency admissions and their actual admission, compared to 3,500 in 2017/18. Spending on social care is down 8% since 2010. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year said that between 2009/10 and 2016/17, councils’ spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms. Newer analysis says that it fell by 6% over the same period. We’ve asked it for more information. There are 5,240 fewer mental health nurses since 2010. This seems to be looking at different months in 2010 and 2017, which isn’t the best comparison. Comparing the number of full-time equivalent mental health nurses between January 2010 and January 2018 (the latest figures), the drop is closer to 4,500. The number of operations classed as urgent that have been cancelled twice have doubled since 2010. Correct. The number of urgent operations in England cancelled for the second time or more for non-medical reasons more than doubled between 2011/12 and 2017/18. There has been a 22% drop in ambulances meeting their 15 minute transfer target since 2010. The decrease is actually greater—28%. In 2010/11 in England 80% of ambulance transfers were done in 15 minutes, in 2015/16 it was 58%. Claim 1 of 12 Claim: Spending on social care is down 8% since 2010.

A:
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year said that between 2009/10 and 2016/17, councils’ spending on adult social care in England fell 8% in real terms. Newer analysis says that it fell by 6% over the same period. We’ve asked it for more information.
****