Teacher: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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: Paragraph: Not applicable. The story didn't discuss cost, but the story was clear that is a drug that has been slowed in its path to marketing approval so that is understandable. The story adequately reported on the potential benefits. It just didn't provide the context we applauded in the LA Times story. But it did state: This story while not quantifying harms did a better job in discussing harms than the LA Times story, so we'll give it a satisfactory score. It reported: You have to read the LA Times' story in order to see how much better a job it did than this CNN.com story in evaluating the evidence. The Times stated: By comparison, CNN.com called it "significant promise" and "a new report." We think the Times' analysis was far more helpful for readers. No disease mongering in the story. The story turned to "Dr. Melina Jampolis, CNNHealth's physician nutrition expert, who is not connected with the study." We wish the story had given us some background on her expertise. It also stated that "The study was funded by the pharmaceutical company Vivus." Adequate. The story stated: The story stated that Qnexa was not approved: "The Food and Drug Administration denied the request, asking for more safety data from the company before moving forward." Again, in comparison with the LA Times' reporting, we must give the CNN.com story an unsatisfactory score because of how it treated as "new" something that really wasn't. The story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Study: Weight-loss combo pill shows promise
Student:
Perhaps if we had not compared the CNN.com story with the LA Times piece, our comments might be more glowing. It covered a lot of the bases addressing most of our criteria. But the Times story was framed completely differently, delivering healthy skepticism where it appears to be warranted. This story delivered a key summary line from an independent expert: ""This might be a good tool in the short term to get someone motivated, and that's great. But unless it's paired with aggressive lifestyle changes, it may not be great in the long term."