TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "As he asked Philadelphia City Council to consider a $300 million investment in the city’s parks and recreation centers, Mayor Jim Kenney told a success story. During his budget address in council chambers last week, the first-year mayor said that when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, ""crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" That seemed like a huge drop in a high-crime area of the city, so we decided to check out the claim. The Kenney administration said it got the statistic from a Dickinson College study conducted in conjunction with Philadelphia Police and the Fairmount Park Conservancy, a nonprofit that leads capital projects and programming across 10,200 acres of Fairmount Park and 100 neighborhood parks throughout the city. Meg Holscher, the Conservancy’s senior director of development, said the 87-acre Hunting Park in North Philadelphia was identified in 2008 as an area of development because of how close it was to a high number of families. At the time, prostitution and drug trade were common in and around the park. After community meetings and input from neighbors, the Conservancy -- along with the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation -- presented a master plan for the park in October 2009 that outlined two new playgrounds, a community garden and farmers market, new tennis courts and youth tennis programming, as well as a renovated football and soccer field. One of the most visible changes, though, was 64 lights placed around the park, which Holscher said residents wanted to curb illegal activity and violence. ""This project for us was a little bit of a game changer,"" she said. ""We’ve started to look at parks and how they are tied to healthy eating, healthy living and violence prevention."" Holscher said the $4.5 million Hunting Park capital projects and programming was funded through both public and private funds. In addition to that, another $500,000 was added through grants and corporate donations, bringing the total amount for phase one of the revitalization to some $5 million. After efforts to spruce up the park started in 2010, Conservancy staff started hearing from community members that it seemed like crime in the area had slowed, but an analysis wasn’t completed until 2014. That year, Amanda Vandenburg, then a researcher at Dickinson College in Carlisle, was interested in how parks influence communities. Vandenburg said she analyzed public data from the Philadelphia Police Department and charted crime statistics from 2006, before the revitalization efforts began, through 2013, when the first phase of the project had wrapped up. The data included both part I crimes (violent crimes like homicide, rape and aggravated assault) and part II crimes (like simple assault, prostitution, drug possession and other non-violent offenses.) She mapped instances of crime from inside and a half-mile buffer around the park, and found that there was a spike in crime between 2006 and 2007. After that point, crime began decreasing in 2008 citywide as police enforcement efforts in Philadelphia changed under a new mayoral administration. But crime continued to go down near Hunting Park. Between 2009 and 2013, ""there was an 89 percent drop in the number of crimes,"" according to Vandenburg’s study. Rape and theft from vehicle crime incidents increased over that time period, but other crimes decreased, including prostitution and drug use. Vandenburg also conducted a ""hot spot"" analysis that showed areas predicted to have the highest amounts of crime were closer to and in the park in 2009 and moved away from the park by 2013. While she said the revitalization of Hunting Park can’t be attributed as the only reason for a decrease in crime in the immediate area, the data does support the theory that illegal activity in the area decreased as the park was improved. Our Ruling Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim ." Claim: When the City and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years.

SOLUTION: "Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim True."

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Voters in both Western states approved ballot initiatives in 2012 allowing personal possession and use of marijuana by anyone aged 21 and or older for purposes of just getting high, though public consumption of pot remains illegal. In January the world’s first state-licensed retail marijuana outlets opened for business in Colorado, and stores in Washington are set to follow suit later this year. Both states are among 20 that have already removed criminal sanctions for medical use of marijuana. The federal government still classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic, but the Obama administration has given states new leeway to experiment with legalized cannabis. In Denver’s Civic Center Park near the state capitol, revelers on Sunday gathered to hear music and listened to speakers during a weekend event that organizers billed as the “world’s largest 4/20 rally.”  The date of April 20, or 4/20, corresponds to the numerical code widely recognized within the cannabis subculture as a symbol for all things marijuana. Police officers standing by on the fringes of the Denver festival issued 63 citations on Sunday, most for smoking pot in public - a ticket that carries a fine of $150. About half as many were cited on Saturday, police said. At least eight individuals were taken to a detoxification facility for treatment during the two days, police said. Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson said officers have refrained from wading into the crowd to arrest violators, but instead were citing people who openly defied the public consumption ban. “Those ticketed were blatantly in violation of state law and city ordinances,” Jackson said. Organizers of the rally and city officials beefed up security at the event after three people were wounded by gunfire at last year’s rally. Separately, the Cannabis Cup, a trade show sponsored by High Times magazine, drew sold-out crowds over the weekend at a Denver convention venue. The two-day event featured marijuana sampling and workshops, such as how to open a pot shop, cultivation tips, and how to talk to children about weed, according to the event’s website. Rachel O’Bryan, spokeswoman for Smart Colorado, an organization that advocates for stricter enforcement of marijuana laws, said the cannabis industry needs to do more to police its own. “People are flouting the law by openly consuming,” she said. “We’re concerned about the message that sends to our kids.”  In Seattle, several hundred people who paid $15 a head crowded the cavernous interior of a former brewery where Rainier Beer was made for decades to attend a 4/20 gathering organized by sponsors of the city’s annual Hempfest rally. Reggae music played over loudspeakers and the air inside was thick with the sweet, skunky odor of cannabis. But no police were visible at the event, which organizers deliberately held on private space leased from the brewery owners in an industrial section of the city south of downtown. The gathering featured a workshop on how to roll a joint with an entire ounce (28 grams) of marijuana - the legal limit for personal possession in the state - as well as vendors selling pipes and other paraphernalia, and a blind-toke test in which participants tried to distinguish between different strains of pot by sampling them. Attendees ranged from middle-aged baby boomers to a younger crowd from the so-called millennial generation. A cheer from the crowd went up at precisely 4:20 p.m. local time, as many attendees milling about outside lit joints and pipes simultaneously, sending puffs of smoke into the air followed by raucous fits of coughing. One woman in the crowd accepted a joint handed her from a bearded bystander. “You look just like Jesus,” she exclaimed in an apparent reference to the event coinciding with Easter Sunday. “How does it feel to be risen?”  Doug Medina, 54, said he traveled hundreds of miles with his wife and daughter from Billings, Montana, to Seattle for the 4/20 weekend celebrations there. “It feels a little more open than it did five or 10 years ago,” he said while smoking a joint outside the brewery. Claim: Marijuana fans pack 4/20 events in Colorado, Washington state.

SOLUTION: Thousands of marijuana enthusiasts gathered in Colorado and Washington state over the weekend for an annual celebration of cannabis culture with rallies, concerts and trade shows in the first two U.S. states to legalize recreational marijuana.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The cost of treatment is provided in a side bar: raloxifene is about $75 for a month’s supply, while tamoxifen is about $100. Story notes that medication is taken daily for 5 years. Provides relative risk reduction of chemoprevention with hormone therapy for high-risk women, however, no absolute risk reduction provided. No quantitative risks mentioned for taking hormone therapy for chemoprevention. Incomplete discussion of reduced rate of side effects in raloxifene group. Mentions harms of hormone therapy, such as an increased risk of blood clots and uterine cancers. Notes that there were “fewer side effects” (i.e. blood clots and uterine cancers) in the raloxifene group, but does not mention that the difference in side effects was not statistically significant for uterine cancer and blood clots. This information was not readily available on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website or in reports of the study, the story presents caveats on the drugs. Mentions reduction in the risk of cataracts with raloxifene, which was statistically significant. Does mention that raloxifene, like tamoxifen, has bothersome side effects such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge, which are reported as comparable and mild to moderate in the NCI press release of the initial results of this trial. The story discusses study design and notes that results have not yet been peer-reviewed in a medical journal. Story also notes that tamoxifen protects women from DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ) better than raloxifene. However, no quantitative evidence is presented on benefits or side effects of either drug, and no mention that the study was unblinded early. Chemoprevention is for a small number of women and tamoxifen should only be offered to women with a 5-year projected risk for breast cancer of 1.6% in order to reduce their risk. The side bar is helpful, providing a clearer understanding of who might be at higher risk. Also, this medication is for women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. This article does a good job of explaining that this drug is only for postmenopausal women with a greater chance of malignancy and the benefit of the drug must be weighed against the health risks for each woman. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly and AstraZenaca, makers of Evista and tamoxifen, though this is not mentioned. There is also no mention of whether the breast cancer expert cited from the American Cancer Society has financial ties with these drug companies. The story does mention another chemoprevention hormone drug, tamoxifen. It also mentioned aromatase inhibitors as options being investigated for chemoprevention. Does not mention need for mammograms (screening as early detection shown to improve outcomes) in post-menopausal women at a higher risk of breast cancer. It should be noted that the results presented in this story are initial findings after 4 years of raloxifene. Tamoxifen is usually taken for 5 years and there is much more long-term clinical data on safety and efficacy for this drug. The study was unblinded early due to the improved side effect profile for raloxifene, which was not statistically significant. The story mentions that raloxifene is currently available for use in post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis and that use in chemoprevention has only been in clinical trials–more data is needed prior to FDA approval for use as chemoprevention. Use as chemoprevention would be off-label and only women with an increased risk of breast cancer. Notes that use of raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention is new. Evista is already approved to prevent osteoporosis. Does not appear to be directly from a press release and there is a link for more information on study at NCI website. Breast cancer experts not affiliated with the NCI trial provide perspective in interpreting the results. Claim: A Better Option? A trial of cancer drugs yields a surprise–and questions

SOLUTION:
This article story does an excellent job of reporting the initial results of the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene Trial (STAR) for post-menopausal women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Tamoxifen is currently the only drug with FDA approval for both treatment and prevention of breast cancer in high-risk women. The story is optimistic about new hormone therapy options for the prevention for breast cancer, but appropriately cautious about the early results of the STAR trial and use of raloxifene for chemoprevention. There is discussion that hormone therapy for the prevention of breast cancer is only for post-menopausal women at higher risk of developing the disease, and a side note which discusses who might be in this category. There is also discussion that women who have a history of blood clots and heart disease were not included in this study, as the risk of hormone therapy might exacerbate these conditions and outweigh the preventative benefit of hormone therapy for breast cancer. The article adequately discusses the STAR trial design in which post-menopausal women at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer were randomly assigned to take tamoxifen or raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention for invasive breast cancer. However, the story fails to mention that only estrogen-receptor positive women should take this medication. Because of the initial positive results of the STAR trial, namely, there were fewer uterine cancers and blood clots in the raloxifene group, the trial was unblinded at 4 years. The story does not report that these results did not reach statistical significance, or that the study was unblinded early due to these statistically non-significant results. This information was not readily available on the NCI (National Cancer Institute) website or in reports of the study, balanced infomation on side effects for both tamoxifen and raloxifene are presented. The caveat provided here is important: results of this trial await further analysis and the data have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Clinical decisions about switching hormone medications should wait until these data are carefully reviewed. Cost comparison of the medications is provided, as well as a note that these drugs must be taken daily for 5 years. Tamoxifen has been studied for over 30 years and has been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence in both a breast treated for cancer, as well as the other breast. Raloxifene is currently used to prevent osteoporosis, and while it appears to have similar benefits to tamoxifen in the prevention of invasive breast cancer, it has not been studied for as long as tamoxifen, and as this articles notes, it does not appear to prevent as many cases of non-invasive breast cancers (which are more common) as tamoxifen.