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: The measure, which was the last bill taken up by the chamber before a key floor deadline Wednesday, passed on a 28-21 vote. It now heads to the House for consideration. Several groups would be included in the work group, including the public, community health advocates, businesses, health care providers, and state officials. The group would be tasked with determining how best to implement universal health care, and studying options for increasing coverage and access, options to expand health care purchasing in collaboration with neighboring states, and options on how to pay for such a system. The group would report its recommendations to the Legislature by Nov. 15, 2020. Claim: Washington Senate approves universal health care work group.

Ex Output:
The Washington Senate has passed a bill that would create a work group to study how universal health care could work in the state.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: We’ll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one. This story focuses on the available methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests — the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test — when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other. The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there’s “a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation” from the screening test. But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors. The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available. Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger. The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest. Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating. Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient’s doctor’s office. These details establish the methods’ availability. It also quotes one source as recommending against the use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease. The story notes that what’s novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening. There is no indication that this story relied on a news release. Claim: You Could Skip Your Colonoscopy If You’re Willing To Collect Your Poop

Ex Output:
This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We have only minor quibbles with the story–overall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it’s important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn’t go there. Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public’s health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the “gold standard” and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news story does a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: A total of 155 tests were conducted by two different third-party labs using four different testing methods on samples from the same bottle tested by the FDA’s contracted lab, the company said. The tests are the latest effort by J&J to prove the safety of its widely used consumer product after the test by the FDA prompted J&J to undertake a nationwide recall of one lot of  Johnson’s Baby Powder in October. The FDA was not immediately available for comment. However, in response to an October announcement from J&J that a smaller number of independent tests also found no asbestos, the regulatory agency said it stood by its findings. The different test outcomes could have resulted from the fact that contaminants are not uniformly dispersed throughout talc and there is no standard test for asbestos in talc, FDA officials told Reuters in October. Tests conducted by the third-party labs showed asbestos was not present in the single bottle that the FDA’s contracted lab had tested, nor was it present in retained samples of the finished lot from which the bottle was produced, the company said on Tuesday. The company said its investigation concluded that the most probable root causes for the FDA’s reported results were either test sample contamination or analyst error at the lab, or both. In October, J&J recalled around 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after the FDA said it had found trace amounts of asbestos in samples taken from a bottle purchased online. The voluntary recall was limited to one lot of Johnson’s Baby Powder produced and shipped in the United States in 2018, the company said at the time. That move marked the first time the company recalled its baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time U.S. regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma. The recall was the latest blow to the more than 130-year-old U.S. healthcare conglomerate that is facing thousands of lawsuits over a variety of products, including baby powder, opioids, medical devices and the antipsychotic Risperdal. J&J faces more than 15,000 lawsuits from consumers claiming its talc products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, caused their cancer. Claim: Vaccine-like shots help fight cocaine addiction

Ex Output:

Johnson & Johnson said on Tuesday that recent tests showed that Johnson’s Baby Powder was free of asbestos, after U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigations reported trace amounts of the material in the product earlier this year.