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: 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
[A]: 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.


[Q]: Paragraph: The nation saw one of the worst flu outbreaks in nearly a decade during the 2017-2018 season, with more than 900,000 cases of hospitalizations and over 80,000 deaths, the CDC estimates here  Between Oct. 1, 2018 and Jan. 5, 2019, about 6 million to 7 million people were reported to have contracted the flu, according to data collected by the health agency. Health regulators have been trying to combat flu outbreaks in the United States and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first new flu medication in nearly two decades last year. The CDC last month signaled the start of the flu season (click here), saying that 24 states and Guam were reporting widespread cases, with the H1N1 virus being the predominant strain. The dominant flu strain during the last season, H3N2, has been linked with severe disease and death, particularly among children and the elderly. The agency continues to recommend vaccination as the best way to reduce the risk of flu and advised people who are at high risk category to approach hospital for treatment with a flu antiviral drug. Claim: Up to 84,000 Americans hospitalized with flu in past three months: CDC.
[A]: An estimated 69,000 to 84,000 Americans were hospitalized due to the flu in the last three months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Friday.


[Q]: Paragraph: The announcement came Friday from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which said it believes the exemption is consistent with the tribes’ status as political entities. Early last year, the agency wrote to tribes saying exempting all Native Americans from work requirements could violate equal protection laws. Tribes across the country pushed back, saying the position ignored Supreme Court decisions that allow federally recognized tribes to be treated differently than others, disregarded the U.S. Constitution and violated treaties. They also cited high unemployment rates on reservations and funding shortfalls at the federal Indian Health Service that Medicaid reimbursements help fill. The tribal exemption in Arizona sets a precedent for other states with significant Native American populations. Eight states have taken up the Trump administration on its offer to approve work requirements for low-income people on Medicaid. Now that the administration has granted Arizona’s request, it’s expected to follow suit for any other state seeking the exemption. Arizona initially wanted to include all Native Americans, which might have raised concerns under civil rights laws that the exemption wasn’t allowed based on race, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokeswoman Yvonne Hylton said. After negotiating, the request was limited to members of federally recognized tribes. “We have long stressed the importance of meaningful tribal consultation when states are contemplating program reforms, and I’m pleased with how this important process informed Arizona’s approach,” agency Administrator Seema Verma said. The Trump administration urged changes to Medicaid programs to encourage work and independence. Others see work requirements as unfairly targeting the working class. Arizona residents will have a three-month grace period when the work requirements take effect next January. About 120,000 of Arizona’s 1.8 million residents on Medicaid, ages 19 to 49, must work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month and report those hours. If not, coverage will be suspended for two months. Christina Corieri, a senior policy adviser for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, said he believes the requirements will improve residents’ financial situations, help them engage in communities and become healthier. “We believe that those who can work should, and we think that’s backed up by evidence as well,” she said. “This can improve people’s lives.” Arkansas implemented work requirements last summer and has seen 18,000 people lose coverage, said Jessica Schubel, a senior policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It’s just one more burden on people who are more likely already working, but are in jobs that are low-wage jobs, and they are relying on Medicaid to help them treat their condition,” she said. Most of those affected in Arizona were added to the Medicaid rolls in 2013 after the state expanded coverage under former President Barack Obama’s health care law. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services denied Arizona’s request for a five-year limit on coverage for those who fail to meet the work requirements. Others who are exempt in Arizona include the mentally ill, those with disabilities and pregnant women. Arizona has 21 federally recognized tribes, whose reservations take up about a quarter of the state. Navajo President Jonathan Nez said approval of Arizona’s plan is a victory for all of them. Victoria Stevens, vice chairwoman of the governing board for the San Carlos Apache Healthcare Corp., said the tribe’s hospital stood to lose $15 million in Medicaid funding if tribal members were forced to work or volunteer. About 70 percent of patients there have Medicaid, she said. She and others worked to pass a law in Arizona last year with similar language. She said classifying tribes as anything but political entities is illegal. “Native American people are entitled to health care because of treaty rights and settlements when tribes were defeated in war,” she said. In Maine and Wisconsin — two other states with work requirements for Medicaid — tribes can satisfy them by participating in tribal work programs, including traditional subsistence activities. Federal regulators approved the plans last year. Maine also exempts tribal members from paying proposed premiums. ___ Associated Press writer Marina Villanueve in Augusta, Maine, and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report. Claim: Arizona is only state where tribes avoid Medicaid work rules.
[A]:
Arizona has become the only state in the country where members of federally recognized tribes are exempt from work or volunteer requirements for Medicaid benefits, while 120,000 state residents risk losing health coverage if they don’t comply.