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 Input:
Paragraph: Michelle Obama is visiting Tanzania on the last day of President Barack Obama’s eight-day tour of Africa. She helped Laura Bush open a summit of the wives of African leaders, saying Africa was “at the hub of global development”. The summit aims to promote women’s well-being on the continent. The unusual Obama-Bush combination spotlights U.S. interest in the continent and the importance of Africa to the legacy of the president and his predecessor George W. Bush. For Obama, his three-nation tour has given him a break from a row over spy agency eavesdropping and a chance to promote U.S. commercial interests to a receptive African audience. Bush, who launched a widely praised program to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa when in office, was due to join Obama for a ceremony to remember the victims of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in the Tanzanian capital. An expansion of a program to detect and treat cervical and breast cancer, Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, is due to be announced on Wednesday, organizers said. Former President Bush is due to speak at the first ladies’ summit the same day. The United Nations and non-governmental groups, including Bush’s foundation, launched Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon to provide health services to women in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, building on the U.S. HIV/AIDS prevention program. Claim: Michelle Obama, Laura Bush spotlight Africa women's health.

Ex Output:
U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama and predecessor Laura Bush combined their star power to draw attention on Tuesday to efforts to improve women’s health and welfare in east Africa.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: It’s true that eos lip balm users have reported finding black mold inside the product. Reports of black mold found inside eos lip balm have sporadically appeared on social media for years. In February of 2015, one eos lip balm user’s  account of finding black mold inside a container of half-used lip balm gained a lot of attention on Facebook: “I really liked your lip balm, until I got to the middle of mine and found the bottom was full of mold. I thought there was an air bubble in the middle, but it turns out it was a blob of mold. I tried to scrape it off, but it went all the way down to the bottom of the container. Super disappointed and disgusted. That was a waste of my money, and I won’t be buying any of your products again.” In the comments section under the post, many people uploaded  photos of eos lip balm speckled with what they call black mold. And these reports aren’t necessarily new, either. Online reports of black mold found inside of eos lip balm date back to 2012. For its part, eos responded on Facebook that it “very occasionally” gets reports of its lip balm users finding black mold because it’s a  natural product that doesn’t contain any preservatives: “We do very occasionally hear of this. Mold will grow on many surfaces, especially warm and moist places and on products with natural ingredients. The best way to prevent this is to try to not get the lip balm itself wet when applying it (apply to dry lips) and/or let any moisture that’s on the lip balm dry before you put the top back on. I hope this helps and thank you for using our products. “While mold very rarely grows on our lip balm, it has been known to happen, especially with all-natural ingredients. Our policy is that we’re happy to replace any defective lip balm so long as the customer provides a picture. So if you want to send a picture of the moldy lip balm to  [email protected], we’d be happy to send a coupon for a replacement. Thanks again for the feedback as it helps us improve.” The USDA  reports that most molds found on food and consumer products are not toxic, but it is possible for some varieties to cause allergic reactions or respiratory problems. Comments Claim:   Black mold has been found inside eos lip balm containers. 

Ex Output:
Customers Find Black Mold Inside Eos Lip Balm.  


Ex Input:
Paragraph: We’ll rule this not applicable because, in general, most people have ballpark knowledge of how much chocolate costs. The story did not mention that dark chocolate is typically more expensive than milk chocolate — especially for the premium brands with very high concentrations of cocoa solids. A brief explanation would have been helpful. The story went the extra mile here, providing the absolute rates of stroke seen in the groups consuming the lowest and highest quantities of chocolate. “Among those with the highest weekly chocolate intake — more than 45 grams — there were 2.5 strokes per 1,000 women per year. That figure was 7.8 per 1,000 among women who ate the least (less than 8.9 grams per week).” These statistics weren’t provided in the study text, suggesting that the writer made the calculations based on data contained in one of the study tables. We applaud the extra effort made to provide meaningful statistics to readers! Close call here, but the story goes a step further than WebMD when discussing the possible adverse effects of consuming too much chocolate. In addition to warning that chocolate has a lot of fat, sugar and calories, it explicitly notes that eating too much of it “could be counterproductive.” WebMD offers no comparable warning and suggests that eating more chocolate than was consumed in this study would result in similar health benefits. This story was much more cautious in its depiction of the findings than the competing WebMD coverage. Most important, it was careful to explain high up that the study found only a correlation between chocolate intake and lower stroke risk. As one of the study authors explains: “Given the observational design of the study, findings from this study cannot prove that it’s chocolate that lowers the risk of stroke.” We also appreciate the story’s more nuanced language regarding which constituents of chocolate might be responsible for possible benefits. Whereas WebMD states unequivocally that flavonoids and antioxidants “deserve the credit” for these benefits, Reuters says more judiciously that  flavonoids “may be responsible for chocolate’s apparent effects on health.” [Emphasis ours.] “Whether that theoretical benefit translates into real-life benefits remains to be proven by rigorous studies, however,” Reuters appropriately adds. There was no disease-mongering. This was the only major shortcoming — no independent perspective. An expert in epidemiology might have pointed out, for example, that the data on chocolate consumption were collected from subject self-reports, and therefore should be viewed cautiously. The availability of chocolate is not in question. The story appropriately notes that there is a stronger statistical association with dark chocolate as opposed to milk chocolate. The story notes that previous research has linked higher levels of chocolate consumption with improved heart health. The story includes comments attributed to a direct email from one of the study authors, so we can confirm our overall impression that this story wasn’t based on a press release. Claim: Chocolate lovers have fewer strokes, study finds

Ex Output:

Starting with the headline, this story is careful to explain that the study observed fewer strokes in those who ate more chocolate; it doesn’t suggest that the chocolate prevented strokes. It also features excellent use of statistics, a more explicit description of potential harms, and mentions alternative approaches to prevention. The only major shortcoming was a lack of an independent perspective on the findings. Some journalists may balk at our insistence that stories about observational studies include appropriate discussion of the limitations of the evidence. In only 378 words, this story provides another example that this can be done – and it doesn’t require the length of a full medical journal article to do so.