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 Q]: Paragraph: Major U.S. indexes fell about 2 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped as much as 563 points. On the benchmark S&P 500 index, health care and technology companies absorbed the worst losses. Johnson & Johnson plunged by the most in 16 years after Reuters reported that the company has known since the 1970s that its talc Baby Powder sometimes contained carcinogenic asbestos. The company denied the report. China said industrial output and retail sales both slowed in November. That could be another sign that China's trade dispute with the U.S. and tighter lending conditions are chilling its economy, which is the second-largest in the world. Meanwhile, purchasing managers in Europe signaled that economic growth was slipping. Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist for Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said investors are concerned that weakness will make it way to the U.S. They're wondering if the U.S. economy is likely to run out of steam sooner than they had thought. "Market consensus has been that the next recession is probably in 2020 or beyond," he said. Now, he said, the market is "really testing that assumption and trying to figure out whether it's sooner." Rising interest rates and tighter credit conditions are adding to investors' nervousness because they both tend to slow down economic growth. This week the European Central Bank said it is ending a bond-buying program that has pumped trillions into Europe's economy. The Federal Reserve is expected to increase U.S. rates again on Wednesday, as it's been doing for the last three years. It may also shed light on whether it plans to raise rates further in 2019. For more than 20 years, China has been one of the biggest contributors to growth in the global economy, and when investors see signs the Chinese economy is weakening, they expect it will affect other countries like the U.S. that sell things to China. In Europe, the index of purchase managers fell in France, which is racked by protests, to a level that points toward economic contraction. Germany's reading still pointed to growth, but it fell to its lowest level in four years. Those reports canceled out some potential good news on trade: the Chinese government announced a 90-day suspension of tariff increases on U.S. cars, trucks and auto imports. It's part of a cease-fire that China and the U.S. announced earlier this month to give them time to work on other issues. December is typically the best month of the year for stocks as a "Santa Claus rally" often adds to the year's gains. With 10 trading days left this month, however, the S&P 500 is down 5.8 percent. That followed a small gain in November and a steep 6.9 percent drop in October. The S&P 500 index lost 50.59 points, or 1.9 percent, to 2,599.95, its lowest close since April 2. The Dow retreated 496.87 points, or 2 percent, to 24,100.51. The Dow has fallen 10 percent from its record high in early October, reaching a mark known on Wall Street as a "correction." The other major U.S. indexes were already in "corrections." The Nasdaq composite slid 159.67 points, or 2.3 percent, to 6,910.66. The Russell 2000 index of smaller-company stocks fell 21.89 points, or 1.5 percent, to 1,410.81. Johnson & Johnson dropped 10 percent to $133 in very heavy trading. Its market value fell by $40 billion. Reuters reported that court documents and test results show Johnson & Johnson has known for decades that its raw talc and finished Baby Powder sometimes contained asbestos, but that the company didn't inform regulators or the public. The company called the story "false and inflammatory." In July the company lost a lawsuit from plaintiffs who argued that its products were linked to cases of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. A St. Louis jury awarded plaintiffs $4.7 billion. Johnson & Johnson faces thousands of other lawsuits. Among technology companies, Apple dipped 3.2 percent to $165.48. Adobe skidded 7.3 percent to $230 after its fourth-quarter profit disappointed investors and it also forecast lower-than-expected earnings in the current fiscal year. Industrial companies sank as well. Boeing lost 2.1 percent to $318.75. Oil prices again turned lower, as a slower global economy would weaken demand for oil and other fuels. Benchmark U.S. crude fell 2.6 percent to $51.20 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, used to price international oils, dropped 1.9 percent to settle at $60.28 a barrel in London. European Union leaders rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May's request to make changes to their deal covering Britain's departure from the EU on March 29. British legislators aren't satisfied with the terms May negotiated, and she canceled a scheduled vote earlier this week because it was clear Parliament wouldn't approve it. Britain's economy and financial markets across Europe face severe disruption without an agreement. In other trading: European bond prices rose and yields fell. Both the British pound and the euro weakened. The pound slipped to $1.2579 from $1.2660 and the euro fell to $1.1303 from $1.1367. Germany's DAX declined 0.5 percent and the CAC 40 in France declined 0.8 percent. Britain's FTSE 100 fell 0.5 percent. Japan's Nikkei 225 index slid 2 percent and the Kospi in South Korea lost 1.3 percent. Hong Kong's Hang Seng was down 1.6 percent. Bond prices edged higher. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.89 percent 2.90 percent. In other commodities trading, wholesale gasoline lost 3 percent to $1.43 a gallon. Heating oil fell 1.7 percent to $1.85 a gallon and natural gas dropped 7.2 percent to $3.83 per 1,000 cubic feet. Gold fell 0.5 percent to $1,241.40 an ounce. Silver dipped 1.5 percent to $14.64 an ounce. Copper was little changed at $2.77 a pound. The dollar fell to 113.29 yen from 113.60 yen. ____ Associated Press Writer Josh Boak contributed to this report from Washington. ___ AP Markets Writer Marley Jay can be reached at http://twitter.com/MarleyJayAP Claim: Stocks plunge to 8-month lows on growth fears; J&J nosedives.
[EX A]: Stocks staggered to eight-month lows Friday after weak economic data from China and Europe set off more worries about the global economy. Mounting tensions in Europe over Britain's impending departure from the European Union also darkened traders' moods.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The government has tested around 83,000 people so far for COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the virus, Canada's deputy chief public health officer Howard Njoo told reporters. There have been 1,099 confirmed cases. Canada has taken several measures to contain the fast-spreading virus, including closing its border with the United States, which came into effect on Friday night. Trudeau, who is himself in self-isolation after his wife tested positive for COVID-19, told reporters on Saturday the government is ramping up testing to detect as many cases as possible. "The ramping up of testing is increasing at a tremendous pace.... we are getting more equipment for testing. We recognize that broad scale testing is an essential tool in continuing to fight the spread of this disease," Trudeau told reporters. There are around 5,000 ventilators across the country, Njoo said. He also said Canada is making efforts to bring home stranded citizens, and an Air Canada (AC.TO) plane is in the process of repatriating citizens from Morocco. He named Peru and Spain as two potential countries from which Canada was working with airlines to bring home stranded citizens. But Trudeau said the travel restriction put in place by many countries mean not every Canadian stuck overseas would be able to come home immediately. "We are going to ask people to stay safe, make smart choices and do the best they can in a situation that is unprecedented, exceptional and very difficult," Trudeau said. Canada's foreign minister Francois-Philippe Champagne estimated there are ten of thousands of Canadians overseas. Trudeau's government has pledged C$27 billion ($18.6 billion) to help the economy amid the virus outbreak, which could blow out the fiscal deficit and lead to higher government borrowing by nearly 40%, according to Reuters calculations. "We have heard a wide range of estimates from economists and banks about how bad it is going to get. The only thing they seem to agree on is, it is going to get very bad. Fortunately, Canada is in an extremely strong fiscal position... and that gives us room to inject money into people's pocket," Trudeau added. Meanwhile, Canada's decision to turn back asylum seekers who walk over the U.S.-Canada border has been criticized by advocates. "The government's decision... ignores the recommendations of the World Health Organization and isn't part of a sound pandemic management plan," said Nazila Bettache, with the Caring for Social Justice Collective. She said asylum seekers will cross by other means that are less controlled and will not have access to proper safety measures, such as a 14-day quarantine. Claim: Canada's coronavirus death toll rises to 13 as repatriation efforts step up.
[EX A]: Canada's death toll from the coronavirus rose to 13 on Saturday, and the country stepped up efforts to repatriate Canadians stranded overseas as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the situation "unprecedented, exceptional and very difficult."

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story does not address cost at all. The story is focused primarily on childbirth practices in the U.K., which has a significantly different healthcare system from that in the U.S. However, the story does discuss childbirth practices in the U.S., and speaks to U.S. experts on the subject. Home births are often significantly less expensive than hospital or birth center deliveries, but there are still costs involved. The story would have been stronger if it had addressed this, even in broad terms. The story addresses benefits in only general terms. For example, when summarizing the NICE guidance, the story states "home births are safer than hospital births for women who are having their second or later child with a low-risk pregnancy." And when describing the findings of the U.K. study that was the basis for the guidance, the story notes that "among low-risk women who chose to have a second or later child at home, there were fewer interventions and complications, such as cesarean sections, forceps delivery, infections and hemorrhage compared with hospital births, while the health of babies didn't differ." How much safer are home births under the relevant circumstances? How much lower was the risk of complications? It would be helpful to have at minimum an estimate of a summary figure, such as the frequency of complications and interventions overall for home and/or hospital births. In addition, while the story makes clear that the reduced risk is only for women with low-risk pregnancies it doesn't tell readers what that means. Does having had a previous C-section rule out a low-risk pregnancy? Which chronic medical conditions might rule a low-risk pregnancy out? It's not clear. Potential harms are mentioned at different points in the report: maternal deaths; interventions and complications, such as cesarean sections, forceps delivery, infections and hemorrhage compared with hospital births; "complications" for the babies. But the story does not really explore the difference (if any) between risks that would be of potentially greater concern during home birth versus hospital birth or vice versa. The story does note that the U.K. study behind the guidance found that there was a slightly increased risk of complications for babies born at home if it was the mother's first birth. We'll rule this Satisfactory with suggestions noted for next time. The story reports on an expert guideline published last spring that draws on a high-quality UK cohort study (Birthplace) and a Canadian case-control study.The story offers a broad overview of the cohort study that served as the basis for the NICE guidance. The overview would have been stronger if it had offered some additional details, such as information on the likelihood of complications for mothers and infants in both home and hospital settings. However, the story did include a link directly to the relevant research, which is always laudable. The story also offers limited details about the Canadian case-control study but againthe story linked directly to the study. One thing that's missing from the discussion is any explanation of the hierarchy of evidence how these two studies differ from one another and how the evidence they provide might compare to, say, a randomized trial. No disease mongering here. The story was very careful not to over-hype risks associated with giving birth, whether at home or in the hospital. This was a strong point for the story. The story cites multiple sources on both sides of the issue, and clearly notes when a given source has written about the issue and what that source's position was. The story is, by its nature, about comparing alternatives. The story looks explicitly at home births compared to births in medical centers; and, among medical centers, the story explains the difference between hospitals and birth centers. This is another close one. The story does explain the difference between hospitals and birth centers, but doesn't let readers know how common birth centers are in the U.S. Nor does it mention the availability of midwife services for home births, which can vary by state. However, the story does cite one U.S.obstetrics expert as saying that more birth centers could be established. Because the story addressed the issue, at least tangentially, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The novelty here, which the story emphasizes, is theevidence-based statementfrom an expert medical group that hospital births may be riskier than home births for uncomplicated second or later pregnancies. It is unusual to see a medical group recommending against a higher level of medical intervention. With that being said, there is a fairly broad body of work on risks associated with childbirth, and home birth in particular, but the story only mentions the U.K. and Canada studies we noted above. While other research findings may not offer as convenient a comparison to the study used to inform the NICE guidance, they could help readers understand the levels of absolute risk facing mothers and infants at home, in hospitals, or at birth centers. And if the U.K. and Canada studies offer insights that were simply not to be found in other work, that would have been worth mentioning too. But the story earned a Satisfactory here. The story does not seem to be tied a news release, and clearly draws from interviews with multiple sources. Claim: New Support for Home Births U.K. board NICE, in a surprise, rules having a baby at home is safer than a hospital in some low-risk pregnancies
[EX A]:
The story looks at guidance from the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and related research to pregnant women. Specifically, the guidance says home births pose fewer risks than hospital births for woman with low-risk pregnancies who are not having their first child. The story features plenty of expert views on both sides of this issue and is well-reported overall. However, it does little to explain the difference in risk between home and hospital births to readers and it never defines what constitutes a "low-risk" pregnancy in this context. Giving birth is an intensely personal experience, and therefore the decision about where to give birth is an extremely personal decision. It's also a decision that can affect the health and well-being of both mother and child. More than 3.9 million children were born in the U.S. in 2013, so this is clearly a subject that affects a great many people, and the range of factors that come into play when making that decision is significant. A story that specifically highlights a reported reduction in risk for at least some home births should be sure to clearly articulate that difference in risk, and to explain precisely how those risks change for both mother and child.