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: Major U.S. indexes fell about 2 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped as much as 563 points. On the benchmark S&P 500 index, health care and technology companies absorbed the worst losses. Johnson & Johnson plunged by the most in 16 years after Reuters reported that the company has known since the 1970s that its talc Baby Powder sometimes contained carcinogenic asbestos. The company denied the report. China said industrial output and retail sales both slowed in November. That could be another sign that China’s trade dispute with the U.S. and tighter lending conditions are chilling its economy, which is the second-largest in the world. Meanwhile, purchasing managers in Europe signaled that economic growth was slipping. Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist for Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said investors are concerned that weakness will make it way to the U.S. They’re wondering if the U.S. economy is likely to run out of steam sooner than they had thought. “Market consensus has been that the next recession is probably in 2020 or beyond,” he said. Now, he said, the market is “really testing that assumption and trying to figure out whether it’s sooner.” Rising interest rates and tighter credit conditions are adding to investors’ nervousness because they both tend to slow down economic growth. This week the European Central Bank said it is ending a bond-buying program that has pumped trillions into Europe’s economy. The Federal Reserve is expected to increase U.S. rates again on Wednesday, as it’s been doing for the last three years. It may also shed light on whether it plans to raise rates further in 2019. For more than 20 years, China has been one of the biggest contributors to growth in the global economy, and when investors see signs the Chinese economy is weakening, they expect it will affect other countries like the U.S. that sell things to China. In Europe, the index of purchase managers fell in France, which is racked by protests, to a level that points toward economic contraction. Germany’s reading still pointed to growth, but it fell to its lowest level in four years. Those reports canceled out some potential good news on trade: the Chinese government announced a 90-day suspension of tariff increases on U.S. cars, trucks and auto imports. It’s part of a cease-fire that China and the U.S. announced earlier this month to give them time to work on other issues. December is typically the best month of the year for stocks as a “Santa Claus rally” often adds to the year’s gains. With 10 trading days left this month, however, the S&P 500 is down 5.8 percent. That followed a small gain in November and a steep 6.9 percent drop in October. The S&P 500 index lost 50.59 points, or 1.9 percent, to 2,599.95, its lowest close since April 2. The Dow retreated 496.87 points, or 2 percent, to 24,100.51. The Dow has fallen 10 percent from its record high in early October, reaching a mark known on Wall Street as a “correction.” The other major U.S. indexes were already in “corrections.” The Nasdaq composite slid 159.67 points, or 2.3 percent, to 6,910.66. The Russell 2000 index of smaller-company stocks fell 21.89 points, or 1.5 percent, to 1,410.81. Johnson & Johnson dropped 10 percent to $133 in very heavy trading. Its market value fell by $40 billion. Reuters reported that court documents and test results show Johnson & Johnson has known for decades that its raw talc and finished Baby Powder sometimes contained asbestos, but that the company didn’t inform regulators or the public. The company called the story “false and inflammatory.” In July the company lost a lawsuit from plaintiffs who argued that its products were linked to cases of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. A St. Louis jury awarded plaintiffs $4.7 billion. Johnson & Johnson faces thousands of other lawsuits. Among technology companies, Apple dipped 3.2 percent to $165.48. Adobe skidded 7.3 percent to $230 after its fourth-quarter profit disappointed investors and it also forecast lower-than-expected earnings in the current fiscal year. Industrial companies sank as well. Boeing lost 2.1 percent to $318.75. Oil prices again turned lower, as a slower global economy would weaken demand for oil and other fuels. Benchmark U.S. crude fell 2.6 percent to $51.20 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, used to price international oils, dropped 1.9 percent to settle at $60.28 a barrel in London. European Union leaders rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May’s request to make changes to their deal covering Britain’s departure from the EU on March 29. British legislators aren’t satisfied with the terms May negotiated, and she canceled a scheduled vote earlier this week because it was clear Parliament wouldn’t approve it. Britain’s economy and financial markets across Europe face severe disruption without an agreement. In other trading: —European bond prices rose and yields fell. Both the British pound and the euro weakened. The pound slipped to $1.2579 from $1.2660 and the euro fell to $1.1303 from $1.1367. —Germany’s DAX declined 0.5 percent and the CAC 40 in France declined 0.8 percent. Britain’s FTSE 100 fell 0.5 percent. —Japan’s Nikkei 225 index slid 2 percent and the Kospi in South Korea lost 1.3 percent. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was down 1.6 percent. —Bond prices edged higher. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.89 percent 2.90 percent. —In other commodities trading, wholesale gasoline lost 3 percent to $1.43 a gallon. Heating oil fell 1.7 percent to $1.85 a gallon and natural gas dropped 7.2 percent to $3.83 per 1,000 cubic feet. —Gold fell 0.5 percent to $1,241.40 an ounce. Silver dipped 1.5 percent to $14.64 an ounce. Copper was little changed at $2.77 a pound. —The dollar fell to 113.29 yen from 113.60 yen. ____ Associated Press Writer Josh Boak contributed to this report from Washington. ___ AP Markets Writer Marley Jay can be reached at http://twitter.com/MarleyJayAP Claim: Stocks plunge to 8-month lows on growth fears; J&J nosedives.

Answer: Stocks staggered to eight-month lows Friday after weak economic data from China and Europe set off more worries about the global economy. Mounting tensions in Europe over Britain’s impending departure from the European Union also darkened traders’ moods.


Question: Paragraph: After more than three hours of debate, lawmakers in parliament’s upper house voted on Tuesday for a change in the law to allow the treatments, echoing a positive vote in the lower house earlier this month. The treatment, called mitochondrial transfer, is known as “three-parent” in vitro fertilization (IVF) because the babies, born from genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor. Although the techniques are still at the research stage in laboratories in Britain and the United States, experts say that now legal hurdles have been overcome, Britain’s first 3-parent baby could be born as early as 2016. Mitochondrial transfer involves intervening in the fertilization process to remove faulty mitochondrial DNA, which can cause inherited conditions such as heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness and muscular dystrophy. Mitochondria act as tiny energy-generating batteries inside cells, and around 1 in 6,000 babies around the world are born with serious mitochondrial disorders. Responding to the vote, Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust medical charity commended lawmakers for a “considered and compassionate decision”. “Families who know what it is like to care for a child with a devastating disease are the people best placed to decide whether mitochondrial donation is the right option,” he said. Mark Downs, chief executive of the Society of Biology, hailed “a great day for UK science” and said the landmark decision “will ensure mothers who carry faulty mitochondria can have healthy children free from the devastating conditions.”  But Marcy Darnovsky, director of the campaign group The Center for Genetics and Society, called the move a “historic mistake” which turns children into biological experiments and will “forever alter the human germline”. “The techniques ... are relatively crude and will not in and of themselves create so-called designer babies,” she said. “However, they will result in children with DNA from three different people in every cell of their bodies, which will impact a large range of traits in unknowable ways and introduce genetic changes that will be passed down to future generations.” Claim: Britain becomes first nation to legalize three-parent babies.

Answer: - Britain will become the first nation to legalize a “three-parent” IVF technique which doctors say can prevent some inherited incurable diseases but which critics fear will effectively lead to “designer babies”.


Question: Paragraph: No mention of costs The story quantifies the benefits in terms of survival for both intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The story gives us balanced information on harms, including the very serious side effects which led to less than half the study population adhering to the full course of chemo. The story accurately represents the nature of the clinical evidence, that this was a controlled trial with 415 women. It should have been more clear that it was a randomized trial. The story accurately represents the prevalence of ovarian cancer and the survival. Independent source is quoted. The author does mention intravenous chemotherapy as the alternative and explains the advantages and disadvantages of the new approach. Clearly this treatment is available in the U.S., but it’s not clear how widely available it is and how many oncologists have experience using it. The story does not mention if the treatment is new or not. Claim: Treatment brings hope for ovarian cancer

Answer:
In this story we learn of one of the most important recent advances in the treatment of ovarian cancer. In a randomized trial, intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy extended survival by 16 months compared to standard chemotherapy in women with stage 3 ovarian cancer. It is such an important finding that, in a rare move, the National Cancer Institute issued a statement calling for a change in clinical practice. This AP story adequately represents the prevalence and seriousness of ovarian cancer. The story adequately presents the alternative treatment option (intravenous chemotherapy) and the advantages and disadvantages of the new approach. The clinical evidence is presented accurately (although they did not mention that this was a randomized trial) and the benefits of treatment are presented for both intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The story is especially strong in frankly portraying the harms and side effects of treatment, which were so bad that most women in the study were not able to complete the full course of treatment. The author does present a second opinion from an independent source. However, the story did not explain whether or not this treatment is novel, how widely available it is (and, by extension, how many practicitioners are experienced administering the treatment), and the costs or cost-effectiveness. Another major limitation of the story is that they did not attempt to place this treatment within the context of the overall picture of ovarian cancer. This study involved women with stage 3 ovarian cancer. What percentage of ovarian cases does that represent? What does that mean for women who are more/less advanced? The story leaves the reader thinking this treatment would be used for any woman with ovarian cancer, when in reality, we don’t know if it could help women who are more or less advanced than the study population. Presumably it would not be appropriate for early stage disease given the toxicity of the treatment, but what about later stages (which represent a large portion of ovarian cancer patients)?