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: Chemical engineer Glenanne Johnson was terminated from her position as a lab manager at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center following her complaints about mouse droppings and dead rodents, KOB-TV reports. Johnson said the work environment got her sick and she later tested positive for Hantavirus — an infectious disease spread by rodents. The university would not comment on why she is no longer employed. But lab director Michael Stanley told the station when Johnson first reported the problem and shared pictures of the working conditions, he temporarily shut down the labs. “We want to respond if we see a problem. We want to take care of it and fix it because it’s very important to us that everybody go home safely every day,” said Stanley. Claim: Scientist: Complaints about rodent infestation led to firing.

Ex Output:
A New Mexico scientist says she was fired from a New Mexico Tech lab job after complaining about a rodent infestation.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The California deaths were caused by a strain of the influenza virus that is sending sufferers across the nation to the doctor for flu-like symptoms at rates that are 50 percent higher than normal, said Lyn Finelli, head of the influenza surveillance and outbreak response team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “That’s way above the norm for flu,” Finelli said. “It tells us we’re still in the middle of flu season, and in the Northeast and California it’s going up, up, up.”  The flu strain responsible for the California deaths, H1N1, also predominates nationwide this year. It hits people hardest between the ages of 25 and 64, partly because some older people are believed to have more immunity due to similar outbreaks many decades ago. In California, 52 people died last week alone, including one child, the state’s chief of communicable disease control told reporters on a conference call Friday. “This influenza season continues to be a severe one as the increasing number of influenza-related deaths indicates,” Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement, urging Californians to get vaccinated. In addition to the 147 confirmed California flu-related fatalities this season among people under age 65, another 44 suspected flu deaths remain under investigation, said Dr. James Watt, chief of the state’s Division of Communicable Disease Control. Most of those felled by the disease had other health conditions, but not all, he said. Last year at the same time, the state had recorded just 14 flu deaths among Californians under age 65. The death of a 47-year-old television advertising executive in the state’s capital city prompted a renewed call for residents to become vaccinated against flu. Sacramento County, with 21 deaths so far, leads the state in fatalities. “After reading the heartbreaking story of Nancy Pinnella, went to CVS and got my first flu shot ever,” California’s first lady, Anne Gust Brown, posted on Twitter. It is not fully clear whether California is an outlier in the severity of its cases, because states are not required to report flu deaths to the CDC, and data is collected differently from state to state and county to county, said CDC spokesman Jason McDonald. The fatality data that the public health agency does collect, on pediatric deaths, is not useful in studying H1N1, because the virus is more likely to attack adults, Finelli said. The public health agency does, however collect information on why people go to the doctor, and whether they are hospitalized for flu. Those signs, she said, show that this year’s flu is likely to continue to hit hard. Although the number of cases nationwide appears to have plateaued, she said, that does not take into account that California and the Northeast are lagging other areas with a late flu season. Meanwhile, CDC data does show that far more people under the age of 65 are being hospitalized with flu-like symptoms than last year. As of last week, for example, 76 percent of those hospitalized for flu were under age 65, compared to less than 50 percent last year. Nationwide, the data shows that somewhat fewer people have contracted flu so far this year than last year, Finelli said. This year’s strain, however, appears to be causing severe illness in a population that is more typically robust, she said. Claim: California sees high rate of flu deaths in unusually severe season.

Ex Output:
An unusually severe flu season has claimed the lives of at least 147 young and middle-aged people in California - 10 times the number killed by influenza viruses by the same time last year, public health officials said on Friday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The article states the cost of one test, $3,600, meeting the minimum standard for this criterion. But given the tests’ uncertain utility, as well as the obvious economic motivation of the test marketers, more information on costs would have been very useful. Information on insurance coverage should also have been included. The article does not quantify the benefits of treatment with and without genetic testing. Since at least one of the tests mentioned has been approved by the FDA, and the FDA may get a larger role in the pre-market vetting of these tests, some data should be available. All of the reporting in the article on benefits is based on anecdotes and clinicians’ summaries of their knowledge. While none of the genetic tests is harmful, the article states the tests’ limitations: some are costly, their results sometimes of unknown accuracy and difficult to apply to treatment. A clearer statement about the potential harms–including unnecessary treatment and even mortality–of a treatment decision made on faulty results would have been very useful. Since the OncotypDX test is used to help identify people who may reasonably forego chemotherapy, the issue is whether skipping a treatment that may have benefit in order to avoid side effects will produce good outcomes. The article does not report on the amount and quality of evidence about safety and efficacy of the tests. This is the story’s most serious shortcoming. The article does not exaggerate the dangers of cancer although it does make some pretty big claims about what genetic medicine can and might do – claims that are still unsubstantiated. The article quotes a variety of sources: two clinicians who use the tests, two physician skeptics, a government regulator, and two patients whose treatment has been determined partly by genetic tests. The article is focused largely on treatment options facing cancer patients, and the role genetic testing can play in those treatments. It is clear from several examples that using genetic information as part of treatment planning is an option but not fully dependable or universally useful. The article makes clear that some of the genetic tests for cancer are on the market, some are in limited use,  and others are under development. The article does not make any explicit claims of novelty, but it does indicate, correctly, that this is a fast-developing field of medical science that is creating new insights and products regularly. There is no evidence that the article relied solely or largely on a press release. Claim: Genetic tests help doctors tailor cancer treatments

Ex Output:

This report about the application of genetic testing in cancer treatment provides useful explanation about a complicated but important development in medicine. It helps readers understand the tests’ promise and pitfalls. The story has two significant strengths:   It draws on a range of sources, from supporters to skeptics. Unlike many stories that use anecdotes, this one suffers little from their use. Neither patient story implies a miraculous cure resulting from the tests, only improved disease treatment. The story’s most conspicuous weakness is its failure to examine any research supporting the tests’ use, instead depending almost exclusively on clinicians’ impressions. Most of the claims about what genetic medicine can do are not substantiated by evidence. This should have been stated more clearly. In terms of its presentation, the material about the tests’ shortcomings should have been mentioned, at least briefly, higher in the story. As the story is written, a reader gets over 600 words of positive views about the tests before getting to the paragraph that begins discussion of the caveats.