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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The National Park Service and the U.S. Public Health Service told the San Francisco Chronicle they launched an investigation after employees and visitors reported the problems this month. Federal officials said they haven’t identified the illness or the origin of the outbreak. Park officials said those who had gotten sick are getting better or already recovered. Federal officials were working with Aramark, the concessionaire that operates Yosemite’s restaurants, snack shops and hotels, to clean up and disinfect food service facilities in the park, including the famous Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite spokesman Scott Gediman said. “The park is reminding all employees and visitors to wash their hands frequently and stay home if they experience any symptoms of a gastrointestinal illness,” Gediman said in a statement. A message seeking comment from a spokesman for Aramark has not been returned. Aramark received numerous complaints from visitors about poor food quality, shuttle service and other services since it began managing Yosemite’s concessions four years ago. The Ahwahnee Hotel lost its prestigious four-diamond rating by AAA, a distinction the luxury hotel held since 1991, and is now listed as a three-diamond hotel. Visitors to the hotel at the foot of the iconic Half Dome have included Queen Elizabeth II and U.S. presidents. Claim: Stomach illness outbreak at Yosemite prompts major clean-up.

Output: Federal health officials are inspecting Yosemite National Park’s food service areas after at least a dozen people have fallen ill with stomach issues.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Ravalli County District Judge Jennifer Lint signed a temporary restraining order Friday that prohibits Gov. Steve Bullock and state health officials from enforcing emergency rules on flavored vaping products. They were set to take effect Tuesday. Lint was acting in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday by three vape shops and an industry group. They claim the 120-day ban is an overly restrictive reaction to a national outbreak of vaping-related illnesses and deaths they say is caused by illegal black-market products. Bullock’s press secretary, Erin Loranger, told the Ravalli Republic that officials are reviewing the judge’s ruling. The lawsuit was brought by the Montana Smoke Free Association, Freedom Vapes, Liberty Smoke and uBlaze Vapor said the ban could force more than 20 Montana businesses to close. The business owners said the pulmonary illnesses could be the result of the “illicit addition” of THC or marijuana products into legal vaping products. THC and marijuana are not included as ingredients in any of the products sold by the businesses involved in the lawsuit, according to the plaintiffs. The ban would not only harm the businesses, but also people who use e-cigarettes to quit tobacco products, the lawsuit said. In an affidavit filed in the lawsuit, Freedom Vapes owner Ron Marshall said that flavored vape juices comprise 95% of the products sold in his three stores and his business would not be able to survive without them. On Friday, he said that the lawsuit was about freedom and liberty. “If the governor can take away those liberties with a swipe of a pen, then what’s next? If it’s us today, who will it be tomorrow?” he said. Lint scheduled an Oct. 30 hearing to consider arguments about the future of the temporary ban. ___ Information from: Ravalli Republic , http://www.ravallirepublic.com Claim: Montana judge halts temporary flavored vaping ban.

Output: A temporary ban on the sale of flavored electronic cigarettes due to take effect next week in Montana has been blocked for now by a judge.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Although the physician-expert interviewed for the article works at an academic medical center–where there is conceivably a vested interest in root-cause and advanced immunotherapies instead of OTC symptomatic care–the article deserves gold stars for noting the costs of the newer sublingual tablet and drop treatments, and some important information about what most insurers will and won’t cover. Ideally, the article would have also mentioned the costs of over-the-counter options to provide a comparison point. Even with a Q&A format, articles about allergies can be more useful by making sure to include relative and absolute rates of benefit from various treatments. This article leaves the readers with the idea that all or most people get relief from one or more of the triad of treatment approaches: avoidance of allergy triggers, OTC or prescription drugs like antihistamines and nasal steroids, and immunotherapies like allergy shots. But drawbacks and side effects should be made clear, so that the true benefit is more accurate. For example, while the article does note that successful immunotherapy often takes years, it doesn’t report: The article duly notes the most common side effect of the newer sublingual drops treatment and the rare risk of serious side effects from allergy shots. The article could have been strengthened by including information on the side effects of OTC and prescription drug treatments. The article relies on the credentialed expertise of an allergy specialist, and the “Ask the Expert” format means it’s mostly a “review” of best practices and what’s available therapeutically. The interview subject makes allusions to trial data (“significant decrease” of symptoms, follow-up period) without giving information on the quality of the studies. This story didn’t disease monger; allergies are certainly a common affliction. But, while this isn’t enough to lose the Satisfactory rating, there was what we call “treatment mongering” because of the emphasis on immunotherapy for treatment. Most people won’t need this level of treatment, and will do well with standard OTC and prescription medications. The format clearly excludes independent sources commenting on what the expert is saying. The interviewee himself might have quoted another source or two and strengthened his information, but overall, N/A seems reasonable. The article does a pretty good job of explaining alternatives to the relatively new immunotherapies, as well as some treatment cost comparisons. As stated earlier, the discussion was weighted toward immunotherapy and not OTC and prescription medications. The report makes clear what’s FDA approved and what’s not; and where to get the latest immunotherapies, and where people cannot get them. Good job on this. It seems reasonably clear that the timing is related to the fact that this is prime allergy season for readers. Although the intro makes a grab for a news hook, it’s a pretty weak one, given that the “newest” immunotherapies have been available for at least a couple of years. But again, we don’t think the article was intended to break any news or present anything as especially novel. The feature was not based on a release as far as we can tell from the university’s news release site. Claim: More than shots, there's new help for allergy sufferers


Output: This is a Q&A with a physician about allergy treatments. It offers a mostly solid if standard review of what allergies are, what treatment alternatives are available, and some information about costs. It’s a “sole-source” consumer health story of the kind prepared regularly by news organizations via interviews with local (in this case Philadelphia-based) medical experts. Some news organizations have a rotating list of institutions whose experts are asked to address various medical topics, bringing PR value to the experts’ institutions and consumer health expertise to readers and viewers. Although it’s missing any hard quantitative research data, the story hits a good number of high notes and benchmarks in the “news you can use” category. One downside was its heavy emphasis on newer delivery options for immunotherapy, which will not be needed in most cases. Allergies are a common cause of sometimes debilitating and clearly miserable symptoms, affecting millions of men, women, and children. Health agency statistics worldwide support the point–also made in the piece–that prevalence has been consistently rising and the costs of treating allergies has soared into the billions in the U.S. alone. Thus, there is wide and deep interest in what works to control or prevent symptoms, and in therapies that target the immunologic sabotage that is at the root of allergic reactions.