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: "The cost of the drug wasn’t mentioned – a big oversight. Other news stories pegged it at about $35,000 a year. Adequate job. The story explained: ""But experts stress that Benlysta is not a miracle drug: It only worked in 35 percent of North American patients tested and was not effective for patients with the deadliest form of the disease. Additionally, it did not show positive results in African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by lupus."" There was no discussion of harms. An NPR story, by comparison, pointed out that ""There are side effects, of course, and some of them are pretty serious. In clinical tests involving about 2,100 people, 11 taking Benlysta died compared with 4 getting placebo. About 6 percent of people taking Benlysta got serious infections compared with 5.2 percent on placebo."" The story offered an interesting historical perspective on the evidence: ""The company originally tested Benlysta, known generically as belimumab, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. When a mid-stage trial in lupus patients failed to meet researchers’ goals in 2006, many analysts wrote the drug off and downgraded the company’s stock. But when scientists reanalyzed the data they found that the drug helped block the antibodies that cause lupus symptoms in a subset of patients."" No disease mongering of lupus. Two independent sources were quoted. Not applicable. With no other new drug approved for lupus in 56 years, there’s not been much to compare it with. The story did state that some experts thought this ""could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."" The focus of the story is FDA approval of the new drug. The headline explains that the FDA approved the first new drug for lupus in 56 years. It’s clear the story did not rely solely on a news release." Claim: FDA approves first new drug for lupus in 56 years
answer:
"Good caveats, including in the patient profiled, who said, ""It’s a bittersweet thing for me because I have friends with lupus for whom this drug won’t work. There’s no one-size-fits-all for lupus and I’m just extremely fortunate that my lupus is mild and is helped by Benlysta."" The story should have discussed potential harms and costs. As the story explained, this was not only the first new lupus drug approved in 56 years, but it could be ""a milestone that medical experts say could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."""


question:
Paragraph: "U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio used his first speech on the Senate floor, on June 14, 2011, to evoke the American dream. The so-called maiden speech is a ""big deal for a senator,"" said fellow Florida Sen. Bill Nelson — and Rubio went for big ideas. ""America is not perfect,"" said the freshman Republican, the child of Cuban immigrants. ""... But since her earliest days, America has inspired people from all over the world. Inspired them with the hope that one day their own countries would be one like this one. Many others decided they could not wait. And so they came here from everywhere, to pursue their dreams and to work to leave their children better off than themselves. And the result was the American miracle."" As he held the floor for nearly 15 minutes, Rubio highlighted rags-to-riches stories that he said happen ""only in America,"" describing the founders of Nordstrom, Mattel and eBay. When he finished, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., commended him, saying, ""No one expresses American exceptionalism better than Sen. Rubio."" Rubio traced America’s role in the 20th century, from two world wars to the Cold War and the defeat of communism. Then he turned to other contributions:  While our military and foreign policy contributions helped save the world, it was our economic and cultural innovations that helped transform it. The fruits of the American miracle can be found in the daily lives of people everywhere. Anywhere in the world, when someone uses a mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet or GPS, they are enjoying the benefits of the American miracle. Anywhere in the world, when a bone marrow, lung or heart transplant saves a life, they are touched by the value of the American miracle. And on one night in July of 1969, the whole world witnessed the American miracle firsthand. For on that night an American walked on the surface of the moon, and it was clear to the whole world that these Americans… could do anything. We briefly considered wading into fringe conspiracy theories about whether astronauts actually walked on the moon, but got control of ourselves. We were more curious about his other technology claims. Were Americans truly the ones responsible for innovation of the mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet and the global positioning system? We dropped a line to Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos, who provided us with links about inventors of the mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet and GPS. Indeed, stories from The Telegraph (via Huffington Post), NPR, the Internet Society, PBS and MITnews identify American origins for all four technologies. But these are complex systems that have developed over time. We wondered: Was there more to the story? Mobile phone  A lot fits under the umbrella ""mobile phone"" -- including, say, early radio technology that led to car phones by the 1940s. But Rubio’s spokesman pointed to the inventor of the first portable cellular phone, which is fine by us. (Did you think of dawn-of-the-1900s ship-to-shore communication when Rubio said ""mobile phone""? We didn’t think so.) Martin Cooper worked for Illinois company Motorola as it developed the DynaTAC phone and the cellular network behind it in the early 1970s. The lead engineer for the team that developed the phone, Martin made the first wireless call from Manhattan in 1973. The FCC approved the phone -- the world’s first commercial portable cell phone -- for regular folks in 1983. Now, Japan and some European countries were quicker to deploy cellular networks, in the late ‘70s and very early ‘80s. But Paul Levinson, a Fordham University professor who wrote the 2004 book ""Cellphone: The Story of the World's Most Mobile Medium and How It Has Transformed Everything!"" says it’s the phone that matters. ""That was the breakthrough,"" he said ""There were several different companies and scientists working on it. … But no one believed that it could be done. … So everything that came afterwards was based on that first breakthrough."" An American breakthrough. Score one for Rubio. Internet & E-mail  We read the work from the Internet Society and PBS that Burgos sent our way, then exchanged messages with Stephen Stein, who teaches the history of technology at the University of Memphis. Computer networks that led to the Internet we know today include Arpanet , a 1970s project of the U.S. Department of Defense, and NSFnet, created by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s. These projects, with their indisputably American roots, provided two cornerstones of the modern-day Web: the TCP/IP protocol and a major communications backbone. But Stein pointed out that the way we interact with the Internet owes much to the work of Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist who worked for CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Switzerland. It was there -- in the late ‘80s as NSFnet was being developed in the United States -- that Berners-Lee ""developed the whole concept of the World Wide Web,"" Stein said. (There’s more on this in a PBS article related to the one Burgos sent.) HTTP? HTML? Both Berners-Lee. ""So, yes, Americans developed the Internet, but Berners-Lee made it user-friendly,"" Stein said. Meanwhile, Virginia Tech scholar Janet Abbate says in her 1999 book ""Inventing the Internet,"" published by MIT Press, that even in the expansion of Arpanet , Americans enlisted the help of computer experts from England and France. She also points to Berners-Lee’s contributions, saying, ""The history of the Internet is not … a story of a few heroic inventors; it is a tale of collaboration and conflict among a remarkable variety of players."" The origins of e-mail, as you might expect, are entwined with the Internet. Electronic mail was part of the development of Arpanet in the early ‘70s, according to Stein, Abbate and others. American programmer Ray Tomlinson gets credit (and tongue-in-cheek blame) for the first working network mail program, picked up by users of Arpanet sites. Here's what Abbate told us when we asked her about Rubio's claim. ""I think it's an overstatement to call the Internet a purely American product. Certainly other countries were building their own computer networks (and inter-networks) in parallel with the U.S.; these other networks eventually became part of the Internet,"" Abbate said. ""Also, the Internet itself (as opposed to the earlier Apranet) was a collaborative effort with input from computer scientists in France and elsewhere, and I argue in my book that the diversity of input made the resulting system stronger. I do think the U.S. did a remarkably good job with the Internet design and expansion, maybe better than anyone else would or could have done. But if the resulting Internet hadn't suited other countries' needs, they were perfectly capable of creating their own networks (indeed, for a while there were a number of different competing network systems before TCP/IP eventually became the standard). ""And of course, the World Wide Web was invented at CERN, not in the US or by an American. So does that mean we in the U.S. are enjoying the benefits of the ""Swiss miracle"" every time we use the Web?"" GPS  The satellite technology that puts some of the smart in your smart phone and informs your car’s navigation system is a system of satellites funded by taxpayers and operated by the U.S. government. So calling the global positioning system an ""American miracle"" is no stretch. The technology was born at Aerospace Corp., a military research contractor in El Segundo, Calif. Its founding president was New York native Ivan Getting. That isn’t to say there aren’t foreign navigation satellites. The United States cooperates with Australia, China, the European Union, India, Japan and Russia on global navigation satellite systems, sometimes referred to as GNSS. But Rubio said GPS, and the history there is fairly clear -cut. The ruling  What to make of all of this? Rubio's basic point, that the technology behind mobile phones, e-mail, the Internet and GPS all have American roots, holds up. It’s true ""in a general sense,"" said Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who writes on our relationship with technology. Or, as the University of Memphis professor, Stein, put it: ""The statement is superficially correct, but there is (as usual) more to the story."" Stein was most concerned about the non-American role in the development of the Internet, especially the substantial contribution of England's Berners-Lee. It’s also important to note in the context of Rubio’s ""only in America"" rhetoric that while the United States led, it wasn’t alone in its innovation. Other nations’ researchers contributed to the early Internet; commercial mobile phone networks were available overseas before they were in America; other nations operate satellite navigation systems. But in these areas and many others, Americans can claim primacy." Claim: Anywhere in the world, when someone uses a mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet or GPS, they are enjoying the benefits of the American miracle.
answer:
Rubio says mobile phone, e-mail, Internet, GPS stem from 'American miracle'


question:
Paragraph: "U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas suggested that Barack Obama’s administration bears some responsibility for the mass shooter in a Texas town acquiring guns. In a late-night Nov. 6, 2017, interview with Shannon Bream of Fox News, the Republican senator said that he’d spent the day comforting residents of Sutherland Springs, where the shooter killed 26 people in a church. Cruz said he felt his anger rising on his return flight to Washington ""because,"" Cruz told Bream, ""this should have  been stopped beforehand. Under federal law, it was illegal for this individual to purchase a firearm. He had a conviction for a crime that’s punishable by more than a year in prison and he had a conviction for multiple domestic violence crimes. Both of those, it’s already ineligible. ""But several things happened,"" Cruz said. ""Number one, the Air Force, the Obama administration, didn’t report those convictions to the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. That’s an endemic problem; it’s a problem with the federal government, it’s a problem with the states. ""And so, when he went in to buy the guns, they ran the background check and they didn’t find it because it wasn’t in the database. But I’ll tell you we could have prevented this. In 2013, in the wake of Sandy Hook, I joined with Chuck Grassley, we introduced legislation, it was called the Grassley-Cruz legislation, and it was aggressive legislation targeting felons and violent criminals to stop them from getting guns."" Cruz went on: ""There were a couple elements of that legislation that were critical. One, it mandated that federal agencies including the Air Force report to the NICS because that was a problem back then. But two, and this is an even more critical piece, if it had been reported to the background database, when he went into Academy to buy this, these weapons, he lied on the forms. That is a felony to lie on those forms. The Obama administration didn’t prosecute those cases. In 2010,"" Cruz said, ""48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They prosecuted only 44 of them."" Readers request fact-check We’re not checking all of what Cruz said though PolitiFact in Washington found Cruz claim’s in the interview that Democrats filibustered legislation that would’ve resulted in the Texas church shooter being in prison rather than wreaking havoc. Readers asked us if Cruz was correct about the very few prosecutions of individuals for lying while buying a gun from a licensed dealer. Previous fact-checks A 1993 law requires a criminal history background check by the FBI or a state agency. If a potential buyer fails the check, the gun sale is denied and the case is referred to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the lead investigative agency in gun enforcement. The automated national instant background check system began operating in 1998. Some perspective: In 2013, our colleagues at PolitiFact Virginia reviewed federal reports before concluding that the Justice Department hadn’t been prioritizing perjury charges in connection with background checks for at least two administrations. During George W. Bush’s presidency, there had been 70,000 denials for gun purchases a year and some 15/100th of 1 percent of such cases were prosecuted. In the first two years of Obama’s presidency, 8/100th of 1 percent of such cases were prosecuted. By email, a Cruz spokesman, Phil Novack, told us Cruz drew on a 2012 federal report to reach his 2010 figures. Novack noted too that when Cruz made a similar claim in 2013, the Fact Checker at The Washington Post confirmed the declared 44 prosecutions based on information in the report. 2010 statistics In 2010, the report says, FBI background checks led to initial denials of 72,659 applications to purchase a gun--with 34,451 denials attributed to a person’s felony indictment or conviction and 13,862 due to the person being a fugitive from justice--48,313 combined. But most of those denials never made it to prosecutorial consideration. The report says the ATF overturned, canceled or chose not to refer for further investigation 71,410 denial cases sent its way by the FBI; some 4,732 cases were then referred to field offices for further review. Ultimately, the report says, 62 cases were referred for federal prosecution with 18 of those not taken up by a prosecutor--which leaves 44. Then again, that doesn’t mean 44 prosecutions proceeded. That’s because a dozen referrals were still pending action by a prosecutor as of Dec. 13, 2011, the report says. Otherwise, an accompanying chart shows that the 44 possible prosecutions would have been down from 77 prosecutions the year before and 105 in 2008--and prosecutorial referrals also had declined through those years. By phone, we asked the report’s author, Ron Frandsen, about the availability of more recent data. Frandsen, who works for the Missouri-based Regional Justice Information Service, said that to his knowledge, no analyses of post-2010 data have been funded. By email, Frandsen said that most likely, the 48,321 denied applications tallied for felony or fugitive reasons were found in FBI background checks after applicants failed to disclose such information on a form. ""FBI denials are referred to ATF, which investigates the cases deemed most worthy of possible prosecution. From the 2010 FBI denials, ATF referred 62 charges (against 33 people) to U.S. or state attorneys for possible prosecution,"" Frandsen said, involving nine different federal offenses and two to seven state offenses. Frandsen said Cruz was accurate in his reference to 48,000 denials. He said the reference to 44 prosecutions wasn’t accurate because the ""44"" from the service’s report refers to charges, not individual people, and those charges involved ""more than just felons and fugitives, and,"" Frandsen wrote, ""because some of the prosecutorial decisions were made by state attorneys."" There’s more data available, PolitiFact reporters have noted, in a 2013 analysis of federal weapons cases by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, based at Syracuse University. The analysis doesn’t mention background checks directly. But a chart lists 123 prosecutions in 2010 in which the lead charge was making false/fictitious statements in order to acquire a firearm or ammunition. The comparable count was 143 in 2011 and 170 in 2012, the chart states. The relevant law says it’s unlawful for anyone acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer to knowingly make false or fictitious oral or written statements intended to deceive the seller about the sale’s legality. Explaining the few prosecutions Why has Uncle Sam seemingly been reluctant to prosecute these cases? A 2004 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general provided several answers. It said ATF agents viewed the violations ""as distracting from more important cases, such as those involving firearms, traffickers, gangs, arson and explosives"" and ""saw little purpose in investigating a standard case in which the NICS successfully prohibited a person from purchasing a firearm."" The report also said that the cases lack ""jury appeal"" for prosecutors because it is difficult to prove that a prohibited person intentionally lied on the background check and in many parts of the nation ""juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle."" Frandsen told us he hasn’t researched in depth why few violations get prosecuted. But, he said, such cases are hard to prosecute ""because the government must prove that the denied person intentionally failed to disclose a prohibition on the federal form (as opposed to just being unaware of what was on their record)."" Also, he said, there’s a belief that the main purpose of the background check requirement is to prevent a firearm transfer to a prohibited person--and the additional step of prosecution ""should be reserved for the most dangerous people, especially those with an extensive criminal history."" Our ruling Cruz said: ""In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns"" and the Obama administration ""prosecuted only 44 of them."" There may have been even fewer federal prosecutions of such felons and fugitives, figures indicate, though Cruz failed to note that this paucity wasn’t unique to one administration. It’s also worth clarifying that we don’t know if all 48,000 individuals knowingly misled the government. Few of the tallied background checks resulted in further investigation. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They [The Obama administration] prosecuted only 44 of them.
answer:

"Cruz said: ""In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns"" and the Obama administration ""prosecuted only 44 of them."" There may have been even fewer federal prosecutions of such felons and fugitives, figures indicate, though Cruz failed to note that this paucity wasn’t unique to one administration. It’s also worth clarifying that we don’t know if all 48,000 individuals knowingly misled the government. Few of the tallied background checks resulted in further investigation."