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: Cost is not a component of this story. That is an issue, as the story compares three weight-loss surgical options for morbidly obese individuals, and readers might well be interested in the economics. Also, it would be useful to discuss the costs ofnot having surgery in the matched population. The story does a nice job of making the weight loss comparisonsboth over time for gastric bypass surgery and across surgical optionsclear. The story makes no mention of harms. Bariatric procedures can lead to an array of complications that are worth considering. And on the flip side, it's worth noting that research also hasindicated thatbariatric surgery can both extend quantity and quality of life when compared to not having surgery. Details of the two-part study conducted here are includedand clearly described. And we were also pleased to see several study limitations discussed: "For example, the study included mostly men, so the findings may not apply to women." That said, we do wish more had been said about the study participants, such as averagebody mass index levels before and after the surgeries. Morbid obesity is a major and growing health issue with frustratingly few treatment options. Sources are clearly identified, along with information about their links to the study itself (one scientist was the study's lead researcher, and the other quoted in the story was independent). This is another strong point of the story. The study compared the longer term weight-loss outcomes of the three primary bariatric surgical procedures. The story doesn't make it readily clear how accessible these surgeries are, and who is a good candidate for one. Typically, these procedures are for people over a certain body-mass index, for example. And insurance coverage may or may not pay for it. The story is clear that this study contributes to a growing set of data about long-term weight-loss effects of these surgeries. Duke Medicine issued a newsrelease, and the HealthDay storydoes not rely solely on it. Claim: Weight-Loss Surgery Sheds Pounds Long Term
[EX A]: Bariatric surgeries have been identified as perhaps the most successful means for people who are morbidly obese to lose weight, and use of these procedures is increasing, according to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Information about whether the weight-loss results last, and for how long,is a useful addition to the growing medical literature on these surgeries. The study described here by HealthDay speaks directly to the issue in a couple of well-designed analyses, and the story does a good job of explaining both the methods and the results. Missing from an otherwise good narrative is information about the risks of these procedures, as well as their costs and overall availability to the general public. Obesity is a major health issue in the United States, and the use of bariatric surgical procedures is being used increasingly for those who are morbidly obese. Knowing how long people keep the weight offand by how muchis useful for those deciding whether to opt into the procedure. Also of interest is if the health benefits, such as remission of type 2 diabetes, were sustained, though this study didn't appear to investigate that.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Editor's note, July 8, 2016: We originally published this fact check on June 13 and rated the statement False. After that, experts pointed out we left out a step in our calculation of Harris County's incarceration rate. We have updated our story and the rating has changed. You may read an archived version of the original article here. Equal Justice Under Law, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, filed a lawsuit against Harris County's bail system alleging that hundreds of offenders are jailed for minor offenses every day because they cannot afford to make bail. The group says that since 2015, it has filed 10 class action challenges to money bail systems in eight states. The May 2016 suit led state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, to issue a press release on May 19, 2016, sharing his support of the legal action, saying, ""Harris County's overreliance on the inefficient and ineffective use of mass incarceration as a means of dealing with low-level and nonviolent offenses continues to result in some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world."" We're familiar with incarceration rates. In August 2015, PolitiFact Virginia found a claim the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate -- meaning the greatest share of the population behind bars. In March 2016, we rated a claim that Texas has a higher incarceration rate than Russia or Iran. So, does Harris County, the third most populous in the nation, also have one of the highest incarceration rates in the country and world? The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics defines an incarceration rate as the number of inmates per 100,000 residents held in state or federal prisons or local jails. To our request for the senator's factual backup, Ellis aide David Edmonson emailed a spreadsheet listing incarceration rates for the five most populous counties in the state, based on data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Harris County had a rate of 234 inmates per 100,000, while the four less-populous counties had rates between 152 and 233 people per 100,000. Edmonson also included a link to a Washington Post fact-check stating the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and a link to the website of The Sentencing Project listing Texas as having the seventh highest incarceration rate in the country. Harris County, he said, has the highest prison and state jail rate of the five largest counties in the state, as determined by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. ""In other words,"" Edmonson wrote, ""Harris County sends the most people to prison and state jail -- in the state with the seventh-highest incarceration -- in the country with the highest incarceration rate."" Checking with TDCJ With Edmonson's reply in our pocket, we looked to verify figures on our own. First, we checked with TDCJ to see how Harris County's incarceration rate compares nationally and with other counties in Texas, focusing on the agency's 2014 annual statistical report tallying newly incarcerated people (receives) and each facility's on-hand population, which provides a closer look at the incarcerated population on Aug. 31, 2014, all by county of conviction. The data reflect populations in state prisons, state jails and substance abuse felony punishment facilities. By phone, we asked Jason Clark, the director of TDCJ, what the different charts represented in the agency's report, and which would be most accurate for reflecting each county's incarcerated population in state facilities. Clark described the on-hand population as the best overall measure, as ""new receives,"" only show the newly admitted population. He added one caveat the counties listed show where a person was convicted, not necessarily where that person lived before or where that person is being detained. So, according to TDCJ, Harris County's incarceration rate in state facilities in 2014, the most recent year published, was 599 inmates per 100,000 residents, or 26,647 inmates. By rate alone, that ranked Harris County 134th out of Texas' 254 counties. However, there are many other prisoners held in local jailhouses. So we turned to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, which regulates county jails and municipal lockups. The commission's monthly incarceration rate report reflects the average daily population of county jail inmates, based on a 12-month average of one-day snapshots, taken the first day of each month. According to the commission's September 2014 report, Harris County in 2014 had a rate of 196.6 inmates per 100,000 residents, or 8,731 inmates in county and municipal lockups. Looking strictly at incarceration rates, regardless of the relative population of different counties, Harris County placed 169th in the state. By adding figures from both sources of data, we get a fuller picture of the number of people behind bars in Harris County, regardless of whether they are in a county jail or state prison. That gives Harris County a 2014 incarceration rate of 796 inmates per 100,000 residents, or 35,378 people who were in county jail, state jail, prison or substance abuse facilities. If we include federal prison inmates, the overall rate increases to 816 per 100,000 residents, or 36,234 people. U.S., world incarceration rates For the same year, the total United States' incarceration rate was 716 per 100,000, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit that advocates against what it calls mass criminalization policies. Worldwide, the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, a London-based nonprofit that conducts research on crime and criminal justice issues, calculated an incarceration rate of 144 per 100,000, based on United Nations data. That is, Harris County had a total incarceration rate exceeding both the world and U.S. rates. There are some Texas-centric wrinkles, however. Out of the five most populous Texas counties, Harris County's rate came in second place for 2014. Dallas County had an overall incarceration rate of 913 inmates per 100,000, or 23,006 inmates. And far less populous counties had even higher rates. Notably, Kenedy County in South Texas ranked first in the state with an overall rate of 5,000 people per 100,000 residents, though the county accounted for a grand total of 20 inmates. At the time, Kenedy County was home to 400 residents; Harris County's population was 4.4 million. Experts comment For guidance, we checked with two independent criminal justice experts. Peter Wagner directs the Prison Policy Initiative, which studies incarceration rates closely and often is called upon to explain such figures. Michele Dietch, a senior lecturer in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, has worked on criminal justice issues since the late 1980s. Wagner said the initiative's global report, which folds in U.S. states with other countries to make state-to-country incarceration rate comparisons, leaves out countries with populations of less than 500,000. Smaller countries could prove distracting in discussing how the United States differs from its peers, he said. According to the report, Texas had a 2014 incarceration rate of 1,063 per 100,000, which was the fifth highest in the world. Louisiana ranked No. 1 internationally; its rate was 1,341 inmates per 100,000 residents. Louisiana's population of 4.6 million, according to 2015 Census figures, is comparable to Harris County's population of 4.5 million for the same time period. The report includes federal prison populations in state incarceration rate calculations, since ""state politics certainly influence whether and where federal prisons are built."" Mississippi, Oklahoma and Georgia also topped Texas, with rates ranging from 1,074 to 1,155 inmates per 100,000 residents. Among countries, the U.S. had the highest rate, 716 prisoners per 100,000 residents. Since we began our research, the PPI came out with a new 2016 global incarceration rate report. While rates have changed (Texas went from a rate of 1,063 inmates per 100,000 to 890), rankings have more or less remained the same. Texas ranks eighth in the world, Louisiana is now second after Washington, D.C. and the United States is still the first country to appear on the list with a rate of 693 per 100,000. Dietch told us by phone that she sees value in both per capita rates and raw counts. Per capita rates, she said, are the best way to make comparisons because they adjust for what can be vast differences in population. ""Per capita rates equalize comparisons across jurisdictions of different sizes,"" she wrote in a follow-up email. ""Otherwise, big jurisdictions will always look worse in terms of absolute numbers."" But, she said, there's value in looking at absolute numbers, since jurisdictions contributing the largest numbers of inmates will have ""by far the biggest impact on the system."" That is, rural Kenedy County may have the state's highest incarceration rate and may be sending a higher share of its residents into the criminal justice system, Dietch said, yet its share of all state prisoners remains negligible. ""Those absolute numbers not the rates are one of the key drivers of the size of the incarcerated population,"" she said via email. ""And none of this even begins to take into account issues such as the length of sentences, another key driver of incarceration trends in Texas."" ""You need to look at both to understand,"" she said. She explained one of the main reasons a smaller county may have a higher incarceration rate lies in the lack of local sentencing alternatives including support programs, substance abuse treatment or electronic monitoring. People end up in prison or jail, Dietch said, because there isn't much else as an alternative. In contrast, she said, urban communities like Harris County have more options to keep people out of jail and prison, she said. Our ruling Ellis said Harris County has some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world. Harris County's rate -- calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 residents -- exceeds the rates for the United States and world though we found jurisdictions including Dallas County with higher rates. To be fair, though, Ellis didn't say Harris County's rate is the highest, only that it's among the highest. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Claim: "Harris County, Texas has ""some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world."
[EX A]: Ellis said Harris County has some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world. Harris County's rate -- calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 residents -- exceeds the rates for the United States and world though we found jurisdictions including Dallas County with higher rates. To be fair, though, Ellis didn't say Harris County's rate is the highest, only that it's among the highest.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Cost is not mentioned. The story is fairly specific about the fates of two groups of individualsmostly childrenwith epileptic seizures resistant toavailable medications. But since it uses only relative risk reduction figures to quantify the benefit, it doesn't go far enough to satisfy this criterion. The story says, for example, that "seizure frequency declined by an average 45 percent in all participants." Did they go from two seizures to one seizure per day or from 10 to 5? Providing the absolute numbers would have clarified the size of the benefit. The subheadline declares that "drug interactions remain a concern," and story includes reference to a study that found cannabidiol to interact "badly" with anti-seizure medications currently approved for epilepsy treatment. It later specifies the drugs that may be affected. We think this nod in the direction of harms is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating, although we're concerned that the story mentions no other side effects from the treatment. A news release noted that "Adverse events occurred in more than 10 percent of participants with the most common being somnolence, diarrhea and fatigue and led to discontinuation in 4 percent of patients." The story makes an early point that neither of the studies that received most of the attention was blinded; that is, both patients and scientists were aware of the procedures. The story also prominently reflects the views of an independent researcher who reminds readers that (1) placebo rates can be quite high and (2) the field won't know the "real" effects until well-designed clinical studies are conducted. Children whose epileptic seizures are not controlled by current drugs have few options. This is a real problem. There was no disease (or pot) mongering. Although the story does make clear the distinction between researchers involved in the studies discussed and those not involved, there is no mention of funding. Who funded the study is a very important question. It would also be important to know if any of the researchers involved/quoted were consultants/paid by this company. A news release issued in advance of the American Epilepsy Society meeting, where these studies were scheduled to be presented, notes that the medicine used (called Epidiolex) and was supplied by manufacturer GW Pharmaceutical. That information didn't make it into the story. The interest in marijuana constituents as possible treatments arose because existing alternativesanti-seizure drugsdo not work with some patients. So a premise of this story is that existing alternatives are unsuccessful in this group of paitents. One of the study investigators makesit clear that federal approval for the drug could take up to five years. However, the story also notes that some activist families have already begun using cannabidiol oils "that are made artisanally." Since cannabis has been used for the treatment of seizures for centuries, it's curious why the researchers didn't test the compound in a better designed trial (randomized, blinded and placebo controlled). The public and patients are still left with the question of whether this works. But the story does briefly mention previous studies that have looked at cannibidiol in adults, so the story gets a pass here. The story reflects some enterprise reporting independent of the news release from the American Epilepsy Society; for example, the reporter solicited information about the study's validity from an independent researcher. Claim: Marijuana Chemical Shows Promise for Hard-to-Treat Epilepsy in Kids
[EX A]:
Efficacy and safety studies of a marijuana-derived oil on children for whom existing drugs fail to control epileptic seizures support moving cannabidiol into clinical studies. That's good news. Less cheery is encountering stories about the effects of this drug before it has been tested in placebo-controlled, blinded research venues or even before the research has undergone peer review. The story in this case makes the shortcomings of the evidence a prominent point in the coverage and we applaud this careful approach. But whether desperate parents will heed that signal is another matter. A source notes in the story that a "major" clinical trial's results will become available early in 2016. Might the more responsible path have been for journalism to bide its time as well? When a child suffers, little else matters. Parents of epileptic kids whose seizures are not responsive to anti-seizure medicines will be on the lookout for alternatives. Some have apparently already begun to treat their children with marijuana-derived oils similar to that being examined in these studies. Learning as much as possibleas soon as possibleabout these chemicals is, consequently, important.