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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "Sen. Barack Obama, speaking to veterans, lashed into his opponent for poor military judgment, alleging Sen. John McCain had fixated on Iraq immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ""Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that — as despicable as Saddam Hussein was — posed no imminent threat to the American people,"" Obama said on Aug. 19, 2008. ""Two of the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were al-Qaida's leadership, which no longer faced the pressure of America's focused attention; and Iran, which has advanced its nuclear program, continued its support for terror, and increased its influence in Iraq and the region."" Obama's analysis of the war's consequences aside, we checked the record to see whether he had fairly characterized McCain's views about Iraq after 9/11 and in the run-up to the war. As a military veteran and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain was a prominent voice in late 2001 as the nation grappled with how to respond to the attacks. On Sept. 12, 2001, he appeared on  Hardball with Chris Matthews,  where Matthews asked whether the appropriate response should be ""a legal matter or a military matter."" ""I think it's both,"" McCain replied. ""As — as we stated, the — a nation has the right to defend itself, No. 1. But No. 2, these organizations could not flourish effectively unless they had the help and assistance and safe harbor of these nations. And it isn't just Afghanistan — we're talking about Syria, Iraq, Iran, perhaps North Korea, Libya and others."" That comment was not particularly specific to Iraq. But in an Oct. 18, 2001, appearance on the  Late Show with David Letterman,  with the nation on edge about the anthrax mailings and in the early stages of the campaign in Afganistan, McCain singled out Iraq. After sharing his views about how events were unfolding in Afghanistan, McCain told Letterman: ""I think we'll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq."" In January 2002, while touring the flight bridge of an aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea, McCain shouted: ""Next up: Baghdad!"" He fleshed out his views in a speech at a NATO security policy conference in Munich on Feb. 2, 2002. ""Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaida. These were probably not courtesy calls,"" he said. ""Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shrink from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction."" We should note that McCain suggested on several occasions that he would prefer alternatives to full-on invasion and occupation as a means of displacing Saddam Hussein, such as on  Meet the Press  on July 14, 2002: ""I have always strongly felt that you must try the option of opposition from within — arming, training, equipping and helping oppositions from within; the Kurds in the North, the Shiites in the South,"" McCain told the late Tim Russert. ""At least try that option before we send Americans into harm's way."" But two days later on  Face the Nation,  he made clear that if it took war to remove Hussein, he was all for it. ""Look, we need a regime change in Iraq,"" he said. ""If we can do it on the cheap by having operations involving just Special Forces and some air power and opponents within, either the Kurds in the south, Shiites in the north [sic], then that's fine. But we have to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to bring about this regime change. I think we also ought to prepare the American public in — in — by way of informing them that Saddam Hussein has these weapons, continues to attempt to improve the — their capability and would not be reluctant to export them to other countries."" He continued, ""So we need to keep telling the American people that as well, as well as basically — if I may be so blunt — frightening them — frightening and scaring them every day."" In early 2003, with calls for invasion of Iraq growing more insistent, McCain's was among the most fervent voices. ""Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaida is a grave threat,"" he wrote in a Feb. 14, 2003 opinion piece in  USA Today. ""Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaida's network. ... Saddam is an international felon who has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole and is planning further crimes with his terrorist accomplices. He must be brought to justice once and for all."" The record clearly supports the contention that McCain ""was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11"" — indeed he singled out Iraq on  Letterman  — and became a ""leading supporter"" of the war, as Obama said. We find his claim to be ." Claim: Sen. McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of (Iraq).

Answer: McCain's record on Iraq: eager to attack


Question: Paragraph: No company wants to be the next LM Wind Power. “All it takes is to see something like that happen in a neighboring business or a business similar to yours and everyone gets a lot more fastidious with control measures,” said Dr. Paul Carson, a public health and infectious disease specialist at North Dakota State University, referring to the spread at the Grand Forks plant. Officials with two of the state’s largest plants, window and door maker Marvin and agriculture and construction components producer John Deere Electronic Solutions, say there are new rules of the road. And they’re doing more than the standard protocol of proper hygiene, high-tech protective gear, social distancing and stickers that say, “IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU ARE TOO CLOSE.” Hallways, entrances, and exits are strictly one-way. Other changes have included temperature checks, unique equipment like “no touch” door openers, liberal leave policies and pay provisions, and an added emphasis on communication between management and workers. ’“The stakes are too high right now,” said Paul Marvin, CEO of Marvin, a century-old Warroad, Minnesota-based company with 6,000 employees in eight states, including 1,300 in the Fargo area. “We want to make people feel comfortable and build trust. It costs you a little money in the short term but it pays dividends in the long run.” The John Deere Electronic Solutions plant in Fargo employs about 750 people. A company spokeswoman said “one of the most impactful steps” they’ve taken is to assure employees that they will be paid if they have symptoms of the virus, don’t feel well or believe they could have been exposed. Marvin employees receive paid leave if they are sick and unpaid leave with health benefits if they just don’t feel comfortable going to work. Paul Marvin said employees don’t have to “prove how sick they are” with notes from their doctors. And their jobs will be waiting for them when they return. North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum has held up a Canada-based potato processing business as the gold standard for protecting employees from the coronavirus, stating that Cavendish Farms plants in North Dakota and elsewhere have not recorded a single COVID-19 case among thousands of workers. The company employs 250 people at its Jamestown plant. “It has been a family owned-business for decades, taking care of their people,” Burgum said. “They have a culture of safety that has been long established. It’s easy for them to take it up another level.” Cavendish Farms spokeswoman Mary Keith said the numerous safeguards include infrared cameras to monitor the temperatures of people entering buildings and hundreds of signs in multiple languages placed throughout the plants to make employees aware of social distancing and other guidelines. The company purchased 2,700 plexiglass face shields for all of its operations and has added floor-to-ceiling barriers made of plexiglass or wood, she said. “We feel that what we did very well is we reacted early and we reacted fast to the risk and escalated our measures,” Keith said, adding that workers awaiting testing or treatment for COVID-19 receive 10 paid days with health benefits. Meanwhile, the number of infected workers at LM Wind Power stands at about 150 at the Grand Forks plant that employs about 900 people. State and local health officials are undertaking a vigorous contact tracing effort, recruiting dozens of people to help find other COVID-19 cases related to the plant. Some LM employees have complained publicly about what they believed to be a lack of safety precautions, which the company has denied. Officials with the Department of Labor and Human Rights have not received any complaints from LM employees, according to Burgum spokesman Mike Nowatzki. Scott Weislow, Marvin’s director of enterprise risk management, said Marvin had a pandemic blueprint in its library after dealing with the Avian flu and that gave them a head start, he said. “I think we’re going to see an evolution in business; not just us but everybody,” Weislow said. “Working from home will be more acceptable. Some of these social distancing measures are probably going to stick around and you’re going to see other measures like voice activated lights and voice activated door openers.” Carson said when it comes to the coronavirus, even the most stringent measures may not be enough to dodge “the luck of the draw.” It only takes one infected person who’s not showing symptoms to start the spread, he said. Claim: Grand Forks outbreak has other North Dakota plants on alert.

Answer: A widespread outbreak of the coronavirus that has shuttered a wind turbine plant in northeastern North Dakota and initiated a massive contact tracing effort has led many of the state’s largest manufacturers to review and relay their safety measures.


Question: Paragraph: The story lists the costs of this screening tool and notes the cost may not always be covered by insurance. The story also notes the cost to public health spending for additional, and sometimes unnecessary, diagnostic tools. The story provides a good review of the benefits of MRI screening for women at high risk of breast cancer and breast cancer recurrence. The story does an excellent job detailing the pros and cons of MRI screenings for breast cancers in high risk women, and for any woman who is considering this as an adjunct to, or in lieu of mammography. What is particularly noteworthy here is the discussion of the value of early screening and treatment, and whether it is finding cancer that would cause harm. This is not a concept often found in stories like this. The story lists data that 5 percent to 25 percent of MRI tests (not just those for breast cancer) are wrong, causing psychological distress and unnecessary treatment. The story describes the trial design of the MRI screening study cited and provides quantitative evidence from this trial. The story also notes the false positive rates of MRI screenings, but does not list the false positive or false negative rates for the study cited. The story does not engage in disease mongering or test mongering. The story notes who might benefit from the additional screening – only those women at higher risk – and provides the downside to overzealous screening for breast cancer in lower-risk women. The story also notes annual incidence of breast cancer and the estimated risk of a woman developing breast cancer during her lifetime. The story again does an excellent job citing several clinicians and researchers not affiliated with the American Cancer Society or the recently published article in NEJM on the benefit of additional screening in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. These sources provide balance and sound, evidence-based advice on MRI screening for breast cancer. The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes the follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) and the medical decisions that must be made if there is a suspicion of cancer. The story mentions that MRI screening should be performed at centers that also do breast biopsies. These centers may not be available to all women. The story also notes the cost of MRI screenings, which may not be covered by insurance, making them unavailable for some women. The story reports on evidence  published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting women diagnosed with breast cancer should consider having their other breast screened via MRI. According to the source article, mammography and physical examination missed cancer in about 3% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The story also reports that the  American Cancer Society has recently revised screening guidelines and recommendations that women at higher risk of breast cancer and women whose breasts are difficult to read via mammograms undergo MRI screening. The story includes a great deal of independent reporting and does not appear to be driven by any news release. Claim: MRIs urged in breast cancer detection

Answer:
This 5-star story is an example of excellent health journalism. The story provides a thorough review of the pros and cons of MRI breast cancer screening. The reporter cites unbiased sources who provide evidence-based advice. What is particularly noteworthy in this story is the discussion of the value of early screening and treatment, and whether this screening is finding cancer that would cause harm. This is not a concept often found in stories such as this. The story notes annual incidence of breast cancer, as well as the estimated risk of a woman developing breast cancer during her lifetime, depending on whether she is at higher or lower risk of the disease. The story notes who might benefit from the additional screening—i.e. only those women at higher risk–and provides the downside of overzealous screening for breast cancer in lower-risk women. The story does an excellent job detailing the pros and cons of MRI screenings for breast cancers for any woman who is considering this as an adjunct to, or in lieu of mammography. The story lists data that 5 percent to 25 percent of MRI tests (not just those for breast cancer) are wrong, causing psychological distress and unnecessary treatment. The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes the follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) and the medical decisions that must be made if there is a suspicion of cancer. The story lists the additional cost of this screening and notes that it may not always be covered by insurance. The story also mentions the cost to public health for these expensive diagnostic tools. All in all, an excellent job by a veteran reporter at a top newspaper.