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: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues

A: This story is the best of the three we reviewed about a study indicating that brain scans may help researchers understand brain structure and function in people who have dyslexia. It refrains from claiming that the work has near-term clinical implications for people who have trouble reading and writing. However, the bulk of the story is made up of personal stories about living with dyslexia, while key features of this research are buried deep in the story or left out entirely. What’s more, the story describes the study participants as “children,” thus leaving readers with the impression that researchers looked at beginning readers, when they actually were studying teenagers who presumably had been dealing with dyslexia for many years. In addition, the story tosses in a discussion of an unrelated study of dyslexia and spatial skills. Even people with advanced reading skills are likely to come away from this story befuddled about the scope, findings and implications of the research. Good reading skills are fundamental to educational, social and financial success. Dyslexia is a type of reading disability characterized by difficulties in word recognition, spelling and decoding. Most studies suggest early intervention is important, but little is known about why some children respond better than others. This research suggests that brain scans can provide insight to underlying mechanisms of dyslexia and perhaps help track and refine interventions that could be tailored to individuals. But for readers to understand the value of this study, stories must clearly describe the research and its implications.
****
Q: Paragraph: In the interview, Bolsonaro also stuck to the government’s assertion that a Greek freighter caused the oil spill scattered across beaches along 1,300 miles (2,100 kilometers) of coastline even after the shipowner’s denial of any leakage from its vessel. “All signs point to this Greek cargo ship. All of them,” he told Record TV, adding that the leak, “by all accounts looks like it was criminal.” Brazil’s government has been striving to investigate the cause of the spill that has hit 321 beaches along the northeast coast since early September, hurting fishing and tourism. Authorities have described the spill as one of the country’s worst environmental disasters. The crude’s density renders it invisible from above, making it hard to track its origin or to have a clear picture of the amount of oil yet to reach Brazil’s coast. Some 4,000 tons of oil has been collected from northeastern beaches thus far, according to a statement Sunday from the Navy, Brazil’s environmental regulator, and the national petroleum agency. “To say how much oil there still is very difficult to say,” Commander Leonardo Puntel of the Brazilian Navy said at a press conference on Monday. “Since the oil is underwater, we don’t know if there’s still a lot or a little. There is effectively no correct and accurate way to monitor these oil spots,” he said, adding that they have seen a decrease in oil arriving onto beaches in recent days. He called the disaster “unprecedented.” “There is no case in the world of a large-scale oil spill where the origins are totally unknown. This case has no parallel, we don’t know who polluter is,” Puntel said. Brazil’s defense minister, Gen. Fernando Azevedo e Silva, also stressed how challenging it is to calculate the spill’s scope. “It is not detectable by satellite. ... It is imperceptible. We do not know how much will still come,” he said. David Zee, an oceanographer at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that the 4,000 tons of collected oil is “just the tip of the iceberg,” both because the cleanup effort is mostly limited to sandy beaches in populated areas and also because a large portion of spilled oil is likely spread deep beneath the ocean’s surface. Furthermore, when currents bring oil to sandy shores, it is relatively easy to collect, while is nearly impossible to remove from corals and mangrove forests, which make up part of the affected area, Zee said. Brazilian prosecutors have named Greek shipping company Delta Tankers Ltd as a suspect of the leak’s origins. The company issued a statement earlier saying it found no evidence of leakage after reviewing the ship’s cameras and sensors. “This material will be willingly shared with Brazilian authorities, should they contact the company regarding this investigation. So far, no such contact has been made,” the statement said. Federal Police officer Franco Perazzoni said at Monday’s press conference that the company will be officially notified via Interpol. Brazilian prosecutors said previously that Delta’s oil tanker, named Bouboulina, was navigating through Brazilian waters at the time and location of the spill. The ship was carrying oil from Venezuela to Malaysia. In a search order seen Friday by The Associated Press, Brazilian prosecutors said “there is no indication of another boat” that could have discharged the Venezuelan crude into the sea. Brazilian armed forces along with environmental protection agencies and petroleum authorities are leading an operation to clean, monitor and investigate the oil spill. Several public universities are conducting research about the spill’s origins and impact. Television footage has also shown volunteers flocking to beaches to help with the cleanup, often without government supervision. Of particular concern at the moment is the Abrolhos national marine park, home to Brazil’s largest coral reefs. Authorities said Sunday night that they had removed the fragments of oil that had appeared in the park and so far no new traces had been found. “A very small amount of oil arrived on November 2, on November 3 only a few fragments remained, today there’s none,” Puntel said in the Monday press conference. “Will more oil fragments come? Maybe.” Claim: Brazil reckons with new oil spill mystery: When will it end?.

A: Brazilian authorities said on Monday that they have no way of knowing how much more oil will wash ashore the country’s northeastern coast, despite President Jair Bolsonaro’s ominous warning during a Sunday night TV interview that “the worst is yet to come.”
****
Q: Paragraph: "Opponents of a 1 percent sales tax to overhaul the region’s roads and rail are saying the plan will make it harder for metro Atlantans to buy the things they need the most. It’s downright unfair, said state Sen. Vincent Fort, a Democrat who represents a district that stretches from East Point through parts of Atlanta. The proposal goes before voters on Tuesday. ""We shouldn't be putting a sales tax on people's food and medicine,"" Fort said in a television news story that aired on CBS Atlanta (WGCL-TV) on July 21. Your PolitiFact Georgia reporters have vetted nearly two dozen claims about the upcoming penny-per-dollar tax, which would raise an estimated $8.5 billion (after inflation) for transportation projects over the next 10 years. But we hadn’t heard Fort’s claim. Will the transportation tax really increase taxes on food and medicine? ""It’s not in dispute,"" Fort told PolitiFact Georgia. Fort said his statement referred to groceries and over-the-counter medicine, and that he was uncertain whether prescription drugs would be taxed under the plan. Later, he called us back to say that a legislative staffer informed him that prescription drugs were exempt. We reviewed state law and consulted with a spokesman for the Georgia Department of Revenue to check Fort’s account. The tax referendum was born out of Georgia’s Transportation Investment Act of 2010, otherwise known as House Bill 277. The bill divided the state into 12 regions so that voters could decide whether to add a 1 percent sales tax to pay for local transportation system upgrades. These regional taxes would have to meet certain criteria, the bill said. One is that the tax would apply to the sale of food and beverages. The sale of ""food and food ingredients to an individual consumer for off-premises human consumption"" is exempted from the state’s sales tax, but local governments may tax it. Another criteria is that other existing sales tax exemptions would apply. Under current state law, prescription drugs are exempt. The transportation plan would therefore impose a regional tax on groceries such as a loaf of bread or bananas. It also would tax over-the-counter medications such as the aspirin you took for the headache you got from listening to the transportation debate rhetoric. But prescription drugs would remain tax-free. While the bill specifies that groceries will be taxed, it makes sure other items are not. Jet fuel is exempt, as is fuel used for off-road, heavy-duty equipment or locomotives. So are motor fuel and energy used during manufacturing. Fort’s claim holds up well. ""Food and medicine"" would be taxed under the new plan, just not prescription drugs. Fort got the important stuff right, but he could have been a little more precise and said ""non-prescription medicine."" Still, he earns a ." Claim: Taxes on groceries and medicine will rise under a plan to improve roads and rail for metro Atlanta.

A:
Transportatioplan tax foe says plan hikes prices on food, medicine
****