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.

Q: Paragraph: Although Pfizer continues to test the drug, called dacomitinib, in another Phase III study, hopes for its success have now largely faded, according to ISI Group analyst Mark Schoenebaum. “We believe consensus expectations (for the drug) will be close to zero given today’s readout” of unsuccessful trial results, Schoenebaum said in a research note. In one of the failed trials, called ARCHER 1009, patients given Pfizer’s once-daily pill did not show improved survival without the cancer worsening, compared with Roche Holding AG’s widely used Tarceva (erlotinib). Tarceva is the current standard of care in patients with mutated forms of a protein called Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR). The protein plays a role in normal regulation of cell growth, but when mutated is believed to cause cells to proliferate and thereby help spur various types of cancer. Dacomitinib is designed to block several types of Epidermal Growth Factor receptors, while Tarceva and similar treatments for lung cancer target only one type of receptor. Cowen and Co had forecast annual sales of $500 million by 2020 for dacomitinib, if it were approved for lung cancer. That would make it a moderate-sized product for Pfizer, the largest U.S. drugmaker, which has annual revenue of $50 billion. Schoenebaum said there has been little investor interest in the drug and that Wall Street had expected it to generate annual sales of only $300 million by 2018. The second failed trial, named BR.26, involved patients that previously had failed to benefit from chemotherapy as well as from treatment with an EGFR inhibitor. Overall survival of patients taking the Pfizer drug was not prolonged in the study, compared with patients given a placebo. Pfizer said adverse events seen with dacomitinib were consistent with those seen in smaller earlier studies. In the meantime, Pfizer said dacomitinib is also being tested in a third late-stage trial, called ARCHER 1050, among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who have not received prior treatment. The study will compare dacomitinib with Iressa (gefitinib), an EGFR inhibitor sold by AstraZeneca Plc. Results from that study are expected in 2015. Pfizer shares were little changed in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Claim: Pfizer lung cancer drug fails in two large studies.

A: Pfizer Inc on Monday said one of its experimental drugs had failed to meet its goals in two late-stage studies among patients who had received prior treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, the most common form of the disease.
****
Q: Paragraph: Lawmakers are also expected to address abortion rights, private gun sales and environmental issues such as the rise in sea level. While the budget is the only thing the Legislature is constitutionally required to pass each year, there are already about 3,000 bills filed, including about 1,600 that seek to stuff local projects into the budget. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has declared 2020 “the year of the teacher.” He’s proposing a $91.4 billion budget that includes $600 million to raise the minimum salary for teachers to $47,500 a year. It also includes $1 million to help eradicate pythons in the Everglades and elsewhere — just one of the environmental initiates he wants the Legislature to approve. But the Legislature doesn’t have to follow the governor’s budget recommendations, and while House Speaker Jose Oliva has been diplomatic, he’s expressed some concern over the teacher pay proposal. “My initial thought is one of gratitude for those who came before us and saw it fit to bind us and all future legislatures to a balanced budget,” Oliva said when DeSantis announced the proposal. While several abortion bills have been filed on both sides of the debate, a bill requiring girls under 18 get their parents consent before having an abortion has a good chance of passing. Sen. Kelli Stargel is sponsoring the legislation and draws from her own experience as a pregnant teenager. “I thought for sure my mother would kill me when I told her that I was pregnant underage,” Stargel told her colleagues when presenting the bill. “She advised me to have an abortion. I chose not to have the abortion, but through that process, we are closer.” Florida already has a law that requires that a girl’s parents be notified if she gets an abortion, but it doesn’t require parents give their permission for the procedure. The parental consent bill would allow girls to ask a judge for a waiver if they are victims of abuse or incest. It’s one of several bills filed on both sides of the abortion issue, though most of the others are less likely to pass. There’s a House bill that would outlaw abortions if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, but Senate President Bill Galvano said that would be tough to get through his chamber. Even more unlikely to pass is a bill to ask voters to change the constitution to require at least 50 percent of the House and Senate be comprised of women before lawmakers can vote on an abortion bill. Democratic Sen. Lauren Book said she sponsored the bill to serve as a talking point after the Alabama Senate sent a heartbeat bill to the governor with only two female senators voting on the legislation. “Having to watch two women, whose backs were certainly against the wall in a chamber like that, having to speak up for millions of women who had no voice and no representation in that chamber,” Book said. “I started drafting it after that.” Lawmakers will once again consider new gun laws two years after the Parkland high school shooting that left 17 dead. Galvano directed Infrastructure and Security Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Lee to come up with gun safety legislation after mass shootings across the country last year. Lee won’t go as far as Democratic proposals to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines, but he said he’s considering changes to better document private gun sales. “It seems to me like the best thing we can do to enhance public safety is to take a look at the systems that we use or the requirements that we have in law for people to transfer or sell weapons between individuals,” Lee said. The environment will also be a top issue. Lawmakers are considering legislation that addresses the algae blooms that have plagued Florida in recent years. Republicans are also backing bills to create the Statewide Office of Resiliency and the Statewide Sea-Level Rise Task Force. The Department of Environmental Protection would be directed to take action based on the task force’s recommendations. Then there are hundreds of miscellaneous bills that won’t be among the most hotly debated, such as legislation that would ban “pet leasing,” which is essentially rent-to-own contracts some pet stores offer consumers. Then there’s Book’s bill to designate coconut patties as the official state candy. “This is very serious legislation,” Book said with a laugh. “I thought it would be fun and light, and people are very opinionated about it. Why not salt water taffy? Why not pink Starbursts? We feel strongly about Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. And I’m like, ‘Guys, but this is created in Florida.’” Claim: From coconut patties to guns, lawmakers ready for session.

A: The 60-day Florida legislative session that begins Tuesday will have lawmakers considering everything from coconut patties to a state budget expected to exceed $90 billion.
****
Q: Paragraph: "In an April 15, 2014, debate on immigration, Democrat Julián Castro said Republican Dan Patrick filed legislation akin to the 2010 Arizona mandate that police officers ask individuals about their immigration status. ""He filed (Senate Bill) 1070-like show-me-your-papers legislation,"" the San Antonio mayor said in the debate aired by the Univision network. Castro said this action left Patrick out of step with Texas Democrats and Republicans who, he suggested, are more supportive of immigrants regardless of origin. Patrick, the Houston state senator in a May 27 runoff with incumbent David Dewhurst for the GOP lieutenant governor nomination, replied: ""No, mayor. That’s a lie."" Asked to elaborate, Patrick said: ""First of all, that bill, which didn’t pass, would have only … come into play had police had suspicions that someone had committed a crime and then"" they would ""turn it over to"" the federal Immigration Customs Enforcement agency, he said, ""to try to keep us in line with Secure Communities,"" the program enabling fingerprints of arrested individuals to be checked against federal crime and immigration databases. Patrick further said he’d decided, ""based on things the federal government has done, that that bill will not pass and will not be effective."" We wondered if indeed Patrick filed an Arizona-type ""show-me-your-papers"" proposal. Looks like it. Castro's basis By email, Castro spokesman Jaime Castillo quoted Patrick’s measure, which died without a hearing in the 2011 legislative session, and said it was similar to a vital part of Arizona’s law. As recapped by Castillo, Patrick’s legislation specified: ""A peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws (sic)."" Castillo said Arizona's law ""included language authorizing police officers to check immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is here illegally and, before"" court rulings  ""to arrest without a warrant, anyone ‘the officer has probable cause to believe … has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.’"" Let’s look at both. Arizona law Arizona’s 21-page measure, signed into law in April 2010, included provisions intended to ""work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present"" in the country. A key element of the law--which included state-level restrictions on human smuggling and workers congregating in search of day jobs--directed law officers at all levels to check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Another section said the immigration status of arrested individuals must be checked before their release. The law also provided for officers to transport individuals lacking proof of legal residency to federal authorities. Generally, as noted in a 2010 fact check, the law required legal immigrants to carry papers that confirmed their legal status, though the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out parts of the law that would have made state crimes out of federal immigration violations, as reported by The Associated Press in June 2012. According to the AP’s account, the court rejected the law’s mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. It also tossed language making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job, the AP said, and voided a provision permitting police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. The court let stand the law’s requirement that police officers check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Even then, the AP reported, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. Also, they removed some teeth by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges. Patrick’s proposal According to a Texas legislative website, Patrick filed his measure, SB 126, on Nov. 8, 2010 in anticipation of the 2011 legislative session. The proposal called for revising the state’s Code of Criminal Procedure by specifying that a ""peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws."" If the officer has ""probable cause"" to believe as much, the officer could arrest the person and ""shall identify and report the person to"" ICE, the proposal said. Also, Patrick’s measure voided any local ordinance, regulation or policy interfering with an officer carrying out the described duty, furthermore giving legal immunity to an officer, agency or other governmental entity for any cause of action connected to carrying out such duties aside from intentional misconduct, recklessness or gross negligence connected with the intended law. At the time, news stories said Patrick had filed a proposal like the show-your-papers part of the Arizona law, though Patrick stressed in interviews that police officers would be required to ask a person if they were in the state legally only if they reasonably suspected otherwise. A Nov. 13, 2010, news story in the San Antonio Express-News quoted him as saying law agencies wanted the question to be required, instead of being optional, to avoid complaints of profiling. In January 2011, Patrick separately told the Associated Press and an MSNBC host that he’d been to Arizona to see its law in action. Patrick said on MSNBC: ""It's workable for our police. And then once a police officer says to someone, are you legally present, because they don't have any identification, we then give the discretion to the officer to take the next step. Is that an arrest, is it detaining that person on suspicion of another possible crime?"" Logan Spence, Patrick’s lieutenant governor campaign manager, replied to our query about Patrick’s proposal with an email suggesting Patrick’s proposal was more narrow than the entire Arizona statute. By phone, Castillo said Castro didn’t say in the debate that Patrick filed the entire Arizona law. Our ruling Castro said Patrick ""proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."" Patrick’s unsuccessful proposal was similar to, and modeled on, Arizona’s show-your-papers provision.s . – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing." Claim: "Julián Castro Says Dan Patrick ""proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."

A:
"Castro said Patrick ""proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."" Patrick’s unsuccessful proposal was similar to, and modeled on, Arizona’s show-your-papers provision."
****