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: Data from the 236-patient trial, which lasted 13 weeks and  compared the effectiveness of Cymbalta with placebos, were  presented at the annual congress of the European Federation of  Neurological Societies in Madrid. Lilly said 31 percent of patients taking Cymbalta  experienced a 50 percent reduction in pain, as measured by a  standard pain scale, compared with 19 percent of  placebo-treated patients. But significantly more patients taking Cymbalta dropped out  of the trial because of side effects, which included nausea,  dry mouth, fatigue, diarrhea, excessive sweating, dizziness and  constipation. Lilly said side effects were similar to those seen in  previous trials of Cymbalta for other conditions. Global second-quarter sales of Cymbalta, one of Lilly’s  biggest products, jumped 26 percent to $654 million, helped by  its other approved uses to treat fibromyalgia and generalized  anxiety disorder. The drug works by maximizing the presence of two messenger  chemicals in the brain, serotonin and norepinephrine. Claim: Lilly depression drug eases back pain in study.
[EX A]: Eli Lilly and Co’s Cymbalta depression  treatment significantly reduced chronic low back pain in a  relatively small clinical trial, the company said on Monday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The story mentioned that the test carried a $399 price tag. Of course there are larger cost perspectives. If this diagnostic test truly has value, it might lead to more targeted therapy – perhaps decreasing overall medical costs. If it is a poor test, it may increase medical costs beyond the initial $399 for the test itself. The story included discussion about how this test might be of benefit; it did not include quantification of benefit (i.e. :how much faster could it enable a clinician to make a diagnosis?) though one of the points of the story was that the actual benefit of this test was somewhat imprecise. Lastly – the statement that any information is good is a red herring. However, we’ll again give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story discussed problems associated with false positive or false negative results. It mentioned that physicians might not have the appropriate training to understand what to do with the results of the test and could make, what an expert quoted in the story described as ""foolish decisions"" The story mentioned that this and other genetic test kits prey on individuals’ deepest anxieties. That said – there are many more harms possible. Creating the precedent for direct marketing of lab tests – even if the results go to the doctor carries significant risks. It could prey on peoples’ insecurities, cause financial harm, adversely affect the patient-clinician relationship, and lead to other family members of test positive patients (family members without symptoms) getting a meaningless test due to worry. It was good that the story pointed out that there is little oversight for the accuracy of genetic test kits. Overall the story did a good job; it gave data such as 1% rate of genetic abnormality in unaffected vs. 3% in bipolar patients. It said, ""The report that accompanies those results instructs doctors that a positive test means patients are two to three times more likely to have bipolar disorder."" If the reporter had gone the next step, it would have been even better. For example, if someone has no symptoms of bipolar disorder, then the likelhood of current bipolar is 0% – so a 2-3 time increase in risk is still 0. For someone with many symptoms, the risk of bipolar disorder might be 50-60% (rough estimate) and an abnormal test might increase that substantially. Granted, interpreting the quantitative data for readers may be difficult but it would have been helpful to put it into terms that were easier to understand. But in discussing why the test was useful, the company founder said that it was important ""even if it just helps a little bit"". The story should have noted that this lack of quantification of benefit is problematic. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included quotes not only from the scientist who developed the test discussed, but from several experts in the field. The story did not make clear how diagnosis of bipolar disorder with the test vs. without the test differed. However it would appear that this may have been intentional as it isn’t actually clear how diagnosis of this disorder is dramatically altered in the era where this test is available. The story mentioned that this was a commercially available product. (Though it failed to mention that this test would likely not be covered by insurance, it also did not imply that it would. This, of course, will affect availability.) The story was clear that the test for bipolar disorder it described had been commercially available for about a month. It also mentioned that there about 1000 other test kits (for other genetic traits) which are available. Does not appear to rely on a press release." Claim: At-home gene test stirs up debate
[EX A]: This is an excellent story that used a concrete example (i.e. bipolar disorder) to highlight the pitfalls involved with the use of genetic test kits for gene alleles. Rather than write a story heralding the first commercial availability of a test to identify genetic markers associated with risk of bipolar disorder, this was a thoughtful piece that presented both the hope and the hype associated with the product. While failing to provide concrete estimates for the benefit from the product or diagnostic alternatives, the story painted an accurate picture of the uncertainty for deriving benefit.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Modi’s office has proposed waiving the carbon tax of 400 rupees ($5.61) per tonne that was levied on the production and import of coal, according to the documents reviewed by Reuters. The documents say the savings would improve the financial health of utilities and distribution companies, and help the power producers to install pollution-curbing equipment. The prime minister’s office and the power ministry did not respond to requests seeking comment on the proposals and when a decision was likely to be made. Despite struggling with some of the world’s worst air pollution levels, India has already pushed back a deadline to cut emission levels to up to 2022. Over half of India’s coal-fired plants are already set to miss a phased deadline starting Dec. 2019 to cut emissions of  sulfur oxides, which have been proven to contribute to lung disease. The proposal is a big win for India’s coal industry, which has lobbied for government help, citing high debt levels and burgeoning payment dues from government-owned power distribution companies. Distribution companies owed power producers more than $11 billion in dues as of October, according to government data. Hardik Shah, deputy secretary at Modi’s office, advocated waiving the carbon tax on coal in an October note to the top bureaucrat at India’s power ministry, seen by Reuters. “A possible solution is to waive the goods and services tax (GST) compensation cess..on coal,” Shah said in the note on the installation of equipment to cut emissions of sulfur oxides. Shah argued for a waiver saying even if India ensured adequate financing to power plant operators to install the equipment, it would lead to higher electricity tariffs that would further burden distribution companies which buy power from utilities. The proposal comes at a time when India is set to open up coal mining to global mining companies for the first time. An implementation of the proposal would provide a fillip to state-run Coal India, whose stock has lost a fifth of its value over the last 12 months. Thermal power companies, in addition to emitting greenhouse gases, account for 80 percent of all industrial emissions of particulate matter, sulfur and nitrous oxides in India. The average rate at which coal-fired power is sold to distribution companies stands at about 3.50 rupees per unit, according to a Reuters analysis of data provided to the power ministry by many Indian utilities in October. That compares with an average cost of 2.50 rupees to 3.00 rupees for renewable energy projects. The current carbon tax on coal contributes to 0.25 rupees per unit, according to industry estimates. If implemented, the move would reduce the price gap between coal-fired power and renewable, and potentially impact Modi’s plan to increase adoption of green energy. “Cutting taxes on coal would impact growth of renewable energy as well as the transition away from coal,” said Nandikesh Sivalingam, Director at Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). The prime minister’s office says installation of pollution cutting equipment would cost companies 0.30-0.35 rupees per unit and hence removal of the carbon tax would help companies meet emissions targets while ensuring electricity costs do not rise. But it will be a one-time cost and going forward, coal-fired utilities would be able to compete better with renewable energy. The proposal, if implemented, would cost India over 3% of its total indirect tax collection, which has been falling due to a broader economic slowdown. An abolition of the cess could also subject the federal government to further criticism from state governments, since they received the realized revenue from the government to compensate for shortfalls due to the implementation of a new tax structure in 2017. Modi’s office says if no waiver is given, some form of government subsidy would have to be given by states to keep the power producers functioning and the carbon tax abolition would make up for some shortfalls. Claim: Clinical trial examines safety, effectiveness of drug to treat binge eating disorder
[EX A]:
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office has proposed waiving a tax on coal to help finance pollution-curbing equipment, according to documents, but the move would also make coal more competitive in price with solar and wind energy.