instruction:
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: Measures to curb the movement of people, imposed to contain the spread of the virus, have hit car sales hard, leading Germany’s Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) on Thursday to abandon its full year outlook and issue a profit warning. As Germany prepares to ease lockdown measures which will allow car dealerships to reopen, lobby group VDA said demand needed to a boost. “There is currently no reason for optimism. It is likely that economic support measures will be necessary in order to revive overall economic demand and, in particular, the demand for vehicles,” Hildegard Mueller, president of German auto industry association VDA said in a statement on Thursday. How such incentives should be structured and funded depends on how well demand rebounds after Germany loosens lockdown measures, Mueller said. “We will only be able to estimate what is actually necessary once the car dealerships have opened. Then we will see how customers will behave.”  Politicians and the auto industry need to act in a timely fashion, she cautioned. “It will be too late to talk about possible demand impulses in autumn.”  Mueller’s remarks, made on Wednesday and published by the VDA on Thursday, follow calls for state aid made by Bavarian premier Markus Soeder on April 8. At the time, he called for a cash-for-clunkers scrappage scheme to boost low emission cars, an idea which was immediately endorsed by BMW’s Chief Executive Oliver Zipse. “We need to have another very specific discussion about how we can strengthen the automotive sector. And I think it is necessary to develop a model similar to the scrappage scheme in order to give a massive boost to domestic demand,” Soeder said, adding that measures were needed to boost demand for low emission vehicles in particular. “Let’s be quite honest, all the new engines have not yet been as successful on the market as we thought. Now is the chance to start a project in which we can promote cars in Germany with an innovation premium.”  Stephan Weil, the premier of Lower Saxony, the German state which owns a 20% stake in Volkswagen, this week told Hannoverschen Allgemeine Zeitung that the country needed an “eco scrappage scheme” to boost demand for electric and hybrid cars. Tobias Austrup, a transport specialist at environmental lobby group Greenpeace, also welcomed the idea. “It is good that Weil and Soeder link any state aid for the car industry to ecological progress this time. If all taxpayers make this money available, then everyone must benefit from it - for example through better air, less climate damage and secure jobs.” Claim: German auto industry calls for incentives to boost green car demand.
answer:
Germany’s auto industry association VDA on Thursday joined a chorus of demands from auto industry executives and politicians calling for more incentives to revive demand for low emission vehicles in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.


question:
Paragraph: The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job. Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences. Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all. Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Several independent sources cited. The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug. Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.”  Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market. The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma
answer:
The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:  “notable progress” “do not cure” “might add two to several moths to expected lifespans” “To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug.”   Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.


question:
Paragraph: "Since the story mentioned the high cost of alternative treatment (weekly ""dialysis"" type of process costing $3,000/week and ""most health plans won't cover""), it could have at least commented on the potential cost of this new approach, even if to simply say that the cost is not yet known. The implicit suggestion is that this new drug will be cheaper than the ""dialysis"" process, which, of course, is not known. Benefits are reported in relative vs. absolute terms. See our primer on this topic. The story states that fatty liver is a potential serious harm of treatment and provides proportions of people in the very small study that experienced some form of this complication. Of course, given how small the study was, it's not possible to know what this may mean clinically. However, the story points that out, stating that more studies are needed to better understand how serious this complication may be. Plus, the story also discloses that the manufacturer shelved this particular drug because of safety concerns over this side effect. While the potential harms are not fully understood scientifically, this is discussed in the story and the potential safety issues around this are not minimized by the reporting. The type of study is not mentioned, and although some limitations in study design are pointed out, these are not discussed so that an average person would not know that these results are very preliminary and should be interpreted with great caution. No disease mongering. Familial hypercholesterolemia is described as a condition in which very few people who have it live beyond 30 years and that this condition affects very few people in the U.S. One researcher not affiliated with the research is quoted in the story. Of course, her statements are conditional on whether or not the treatment does what researchers claim it does (since she is not involved and the research is very preliminary), but given the very early nature of the research, it may not be reasonable to find an independent expert who knows any more about the findings. The article does describe the only other option for treating (or slowing progression of) this condition, which was some form of dialysis to remove fats. The story also describes the cost information for this alternate treatment. The article states the drug is ""experimental,"" which implies this is not available outside of research. The story states the drug is experimental, implying this is new. The story quotes an independent source, so it appears the story did not rely solely or largely on a press release." Claim: Experimental drug cuts rare, lethal cholesterol levels in patients
answer:

"The story describes very preliminary research on an experimental drug that may reduce cholesterol levels in people with a familial form of high cholesterol, which affects very few people in the U.S. While the story adequately addressed many of our criteria, it could have been improved by reporting absolute benefits vs. relative benefits of the new drug and describing the type of study the findings are based on and the strength of that evidence. Since the story mentioned the high cost of alternative treatment (weekly ""dialysis"" type of process costing $3,000/week and ""most health plans won't cover""), it could have at least commented on the potential cost of this new approach, even if to simply say that the cost is not yet known. The implicit suggestion is that this new drug will be cheaper than the ""dialysis"" process, which, of course, is not known. The story states that fatty liver is a potential serious harm of treatment and provides proportions of people in the very small study that experienced some form of this complication. Of course, given how small the study was, it's not possible to know what this may mean clinically. However, the story points that out, stating that more studies are needed to better understand how serious this complication may be. Plus, the story also discloses that the manufacturer shelved this particular drug because of safety concerns over this side effect. While the potential harms are not fully understood scientifically, this is discussed in the story and the potential safety issues around this are not minimized by the reporting."