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 Q]: Paragraph: "It is less surprising that neither story discussed costs, given that so few stories do. But sample costs could have been obtained by calling any of the numerous medical marijuana outlets in states where it is legal. Both stories did a decent job of quantifying the benefits.This story provided more details, though, including the differences in patient experiences between the three different concentrations of marijuana. It also repeated this important bit of information: ""There was also no difference in the quality of life or mood scores that participants reported when they were on any of the four treatments."" The story also does a great job of pointing out that the treatment duration of five days in each dosage phase is too short to judge utility for chronic pain, which is a long-term affliction. Neither story actually quantified the harms, but they both noted there were side effects. This story did a better job, though, by noting that the only dose that seemed to work also seemed to produce the most side effects and by raising the issue of long-term safety concerns. It also was the only story to answer the question that readers surely would have when reading about an illegal narcotic being used as medicine. Did these patients feel high as a result? This story says that most did not. Because of the additional information and context, the rating here is satisfactory. This story, unlike the competing WebMD piece, establishes in the first sentence — even in the first three words — that this was ""a small study."" It then discusses the limitations of the study at several points. The second sentence says, ""The pain reduction was ""modest"" – less than 1 point on an 11-point scale for the strongest marijuana – and patients reported no overall difference in their quality of life based on what they smoked."" The writer elegantly and succinctly described the study design — a complex randomized cross-over trial with double blinding and delved into an important feature of the study, that the subjects in retrospect may have been able to detect during which phase of their experience they inhaled placebo versus the most potent drug. This story avoids disease mongering, and, in fact, goes beyond that to note how few people actually suffer from the type of chronic pain that was the subject of the study: ""About 1 to 2 percent of adults in the U.S."" The story quotes two outside experts, one of whom is completely independent from the study and the journal, Dr Andrea Hohmann. Beyond that, we would bet that the reporter spent more time interviewing Dr. Mark Ware, the lead researcher, or at least asked tougher questions. Because Ware is more measured in this story than in the WebMD story. He even goes so far as to say, ""What about long-term safety issues?"" he asked. ""These need to be considered before the drug becomes prescribable."" As with the WebMD story, it would have been nice to see who funded the research. Unlike the WebMD story, this one did not point out the conflicts of interest of Dr. Henry McQuay. This story talks about a range of treatment options and even has the study’s lead author suggesting, that ""these patients should also be getting behavioral and physical therapy."" Strangely, neither story we reviewed pointed out that marijuana is illegal in most states and in Canada, where the study took place. The story could have, at a minimum, mentioned which states have medical marijuana laws or talked about whether any other countries currently allow cannabis to be sold in pill form the way it was used in this study. The story alludes to the fact that this study ""supports a limited number of trials that have suggested marijuana may be helpful for people suffering from chronic pain,"" indicating that the treatment is not very novel at all. It would have been nice to see more context around that. The WebMD story provides a little more information in this regard. If the news release is to be believed, ""This is the first trial to be conducted where patients have been allowed to smoke cannabis at home and to monitor their responses, daily"". That could have been made clear. The story goes well beyond the release. Here’s the release." Claim: Pot may provide some chronic pain relief: study
[EX A]: The story did a great job evaluating the evidence, providing outside voices, discussing alternatives to marijuana smoking, and presenting both the benefits and the potential harms. It could have done a better job discussing possible costs, availability and conflicts of interest. From the headline to the last sentence, this report avoided overstatement of the applicability of the potential benefit and used clear incisive language that left the reader with a good understanding of the study and its implications. This topic lends itself to jokey, pun-filled writing, but this story played it straight. Chronic pain can ruin lives, and a breakthrough with an alternative approach would be important news. As this story makes clear, until some larger studies with fewer limitations are undertaken, we are far from the point where marijuana can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: A deadly fungal disease devastated amphibians in Central America more than a decade ago, quieting some mountain streams. But new research shows evolution may have saved the day — and the frogs. In El Cope, Panama, at least four species disappeared including the red-striped Rio San Juan robber frog. Four other species lost at least 88 percent of their population from a disease-causing fungus that hit Panama hard from 2004 to 2007. The fungus has also been blamed for wiping out amphibian populations in California’s Sierra Nevada and parts of Australia. In the last few years, croaks have been heard in once quiet Panama streams. The critters are by no means recovered since they are still infected with the fungus, but they are alive and growing in numbers, according to a new study in Thursday’s journal Science . “It’s so easy to lose hope when you’ve walked the same stretch of stream year after year, hoping to see a hint of the amazing diversity you once saw there,” study co-author Corinne Richards-Zawacki, a University of Pittsburgh biologist, said in an email. “So you can imagine how good it feels to be able to report some good news from the field.” The recovery is not everywhere and it’s at best modest, cautioned lead author Jamie Voyles, a disease ecologist at the University of Nevada, Reno. One of the frogs making the most noticeable comeback is the hard-to-catch rocket frog, named because it is so quick, she said. Voyles and Richards-Zawacki wanted to find out why the amphibians survived. They initially figured the disease weakened. But after testing old and new disease samples on frogs, they found the disease was as dangerous as ever. To their surprise, the frogs and toads were fighting back better. The fungal disease attacks their skin secretions and recently the frogs showed a two- to five-fold improvement in the amphibians’ ability to limit the fungus’ growth. The disease is still there, but it does less damage, Voyles said. While this research is important, the findings aren’t too surprising because past studies have shown that as bad as disease outbreaks get, they play a tiny role in species extinction, said Andrew Blaustein at Oregon State University, who wasn’t part of the study. Evolution allows species to resist completely succumbing to the nastiest diseases. “So, yes there is hope,” Blaustein said in an email. ___ Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears . His work can be found here . ___ The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: A ribbit of hope: Panama frogs hop back after nasty disease.
[EX A]: After years of silence, the rhythmic dee-dee-deeps of frogs and toads are returning in parts of Panama.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story does not address costs. While the price of a supplement pill is typically just a few cents, this story would have been better if (like another story about this report that we reviewed) it had pointed out that Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on vitamin D supplements. This story reports that the Institute of Medicine committee concluded that typical consumption of vitamin D and calcium is adequate to support bone health, though the story does not define just what the term “bone health” means. The nature of the IOM report does not lend itself to quantifying potential benefits to bone health or other outcomes that were mentioned. The story does provide details about blood levels of vitamin D that are considered adequate by the IOM committee, as well as the higher levels advocated by some individual experts. The story also makes clear that the IOM committee concluded that evidence is lacking to claim that vitamin D or calcium produces other health benefits. This story does a good job of calling attention to kidney damage from excessive vitamin D and kidney stones caused by too much calcium. It also says that some studies have found other harms. This story does not do as good a job as some others in terms of explaining the process of evidence review and deliberation that the Institute of Medicine committee went through before issuing its report. However, readers are given a sense that the report is a consensus statement that attempts to sum up what is known about vitamin D and calcium. The story also refers to other reports and studies that provide context. The inclusion of comments from individual experts who dissent from some aspects of the IOM report accurately portray the active scientific debate on this topic. This story also does a nice job of pointing out recent examples in which hopes of vitamin benefits were dashed by careful experiments, thus helping to put into perspective the claims by individual scientists of hoped-for benefits of higher vitamin D consumption. The story clearly reports the Institute of Medicine committee conclusion that almost all Americans already consume enough vitamin D (and calcium) to support bone health. The comments from those who advocate broader use of supplements are labeled as individual opinions. There are multiple independent sources quoted in this story. This story could have provided readers with more background about the independent sources quoted; there is no mention of whether any of them have any potential conflicts. The story explains that there are alternatives to supplements, that vitamin D is included in foods (natural and fortified) and that vitamin D is produced in our skin when exposed to sunlight. The story refers to the availability of vitamin D in certain foods (natural and fortified), supplements, and that our skin produces vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. There is no claim of novelty. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Report: A bit more vitamin D is good, not too much
[EX A]:
The story includes multiple voices that explain the rationale for the new recommendation, as well as comments from prominent experts who dissent with some of the committee’s recommendation. The story does not give readers any information about whether any of the experts quoted have potential financial or other conflicts of interest. This story does not deal with the costs of supplementation, which another story noted totals hundreds of millions of dollars a year of spending on vitamin D supplements alone. The story does a nice job of calling attention to recent examples of high hopes and later disappointment involving vitamin C, vitamin E and beta-carotene, thus helping readers put the current claims about vitamin D and calcium in perspective. People may want clear and final answers about nutrition and health, but the reality of health research is usually more complex and less conclusive. This story manages to summarize and explain the Institute of Medicine recommendations on vitamin D and calcium, while portraying some of the ongoing scientific debate.