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: The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. And these costs are substantial. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. On balance, this story does a fair job of describing the benefits of screening mammography as seen in this study. It reports the apparent 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths, while also pointing out that because relatively few women in the 50-69 age group die of breast cancer, that reduction can also be described as cutting the 10-year risk of death from 4.4 per 1,000 women to 4 per 1,000. The second statistic helps counteract popular assumptions about how many middle-aged women die from breast cancer. However, the framing of a story and who gets the last word sometimes overwhelms evidence-based explanations earlier in the story. That almost happened with this story, which gives the final word to an advocate of annual breast cancer screening for all women beginning by age 40, which is just the sort of blanket recommendation this latest study calls into question. The story includes a comment that because mammograms detect lumps that would not have become life-threatening, five to 15 women may be treated for every one whose life is saved by treatment. The story oversimplifies the methods used by researchers, saying they compared "women who were similar in most ways, except that one group received mammograms and the other didn't," without explaining that this was not a randomized trial where some women were assigned to screening and others weren't, but rather an observational study that looked at data on women during a 9-year period when Norway phased in mammography region by region. The story does alert readers to some of the limitations of the study: one, that a longer follow-up period might have shown more benefit to screening and, two, that the researchers had no information on whether any of the women received mammograms outside of the national screening program. It's a tossup for us to grade and, as we do in most such cases, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt. Claim: Mammogram benefits more modest than doctors thought
[EX A]: However, it does not explain to readers what is new or different about this study compared to earlier reports. Also, the final word in the story goes to an expert who touts benefits of mammography screening that clash with what was seen in this study. By comparing this story with, for example, the Philadelphia Inquirer and WebMD stories, you see how some of the gaps we've identified were addressed by competitors, giving readers a more complete and helpful story.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: No mention of the cost of treatment. This is important if the surgery is not a permanent fix for acute sinusitis. Repeated operations and continued medications need to be compared to cost for traditional surgery. No quantitative estimate of the benefits of the new procedure. There was a study of 10 people that found "no safety concerns", but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to have further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve sinusitits? The story mentions that a larger, randomized trial is underway to better understand the risks and benefits of sinuplasty compared to medication and traditional sinus surgery. Mentions that more information is needed and no one knows if balloon sinuplasty works as well as the more traditional surgical option for chronic sinusitis. Mentions that general anesthesia is still needed for balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks. There isn't much evidence for the story to report. The story did stress the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. Story describes this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. Mentions that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence. No evidence of disease mongering. The story mentions that this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinunitis and describes how these are different. Good balance of information on treatment options with input from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new procedure. They mention that further study is needed. There is a note that one of the physicans studying the new sinuplasty has no financial ties to Acclarent, maker of the balloon devices used in this type of sinuplasty. Mentions that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and tissue are removed. There is mention of other options including medication and the more traditional surgery, which is decribed as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of this and other side effects of traditional surgery would be useful. The story is clear that the FDA approved the device but that it still needs to undergo further study via randomized controlled trials. Story mentions that this is a new procedure only offerred by 100 doctors. This story is a blananced presentation of sinuplasty and the information here does not appear to be from a press release. The are quotes from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new sinuplasty procedure. Claim: A balloon instead of a knife: Sinuplasty for ailing sinuses
[EX A]: This story provides a good balance of information on a new treatment option for chronic sinusitis, and there is corroboration with otolaryngologists not affiliated with the makers of the balloon device who are able to provide perspective on the procedure. The story clearly notes this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinusitis and describes how these are different. The story explains that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody, and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and inflamed tissue are removed to open the sinus passages. More information is needed on the safety and efficacy of balloon sinuplasty, and no one knows if this surgery works as well as traditional surgery for chronic sinusitis. The story mentions other options for treating chronic sinusitis, including medication and sinus surgery, which is described as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of side effects with traditional surgery would be useful. While there is not much quantitative evidence available on the new procedure, the story stresses the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. There is adequate description of this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. There is a caveat that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence: a study of 10 people that found "no safety concerns", but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to undergo further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve their chronic sinusitis? The story explains that general anesthesia is still needed for the balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks and additional costs. There is no mention of the cost of this newer procedure. This is important information if the surgery is not a permanent fix for chronic sinusitis. A cost comparison of the newer sinuplasty, which may require repeated operations, sinus medications and traditional surgery is needed.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The story does not mention thecosts of zinc products. The story does a good job of describing how many studies showed no effect of the zinc products. In the one study showing a benefit of zinc nasal gel, the story provides quantification of benefits in natural frequencies (days of duration of the cold) rather than in terms of relative reduction. The story discusses unpleasant taste, upset stomatch, stinging sensation and, potentially, loss of smell as harms or side effects of zinc products. The story does a great job of describing the design of the current study, which is a special kind of literature review. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of colds. In fact the writer could have emphasized that colds are expensive, resulting in lost productivity and sick days due to illness in workers and their children. The story quotes an independent expert as well as the lead author on the current study and the representative of the manufacturer. The story mentions over-the-counterantihistamines, decongestants, and pain releivers as alternatives, appropriately pointing out that there is no ""cure"" for the common cold. The story clearly states that zinc products are available over the counter in drugstores. The story clearly states that zinc products are not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information." Claim: An element of mystery in zinc cold treatments
[EX A]:
The common cold is just that, common, and there is currently no cure. Treatments focus on reducing symptoms, but do not change the course of the infection. Prevention efforts focus on hand hygiene to reduce transmission. Large dosesof vitamin C, echinacea and, more recently, zinc, have become increasingly popular judged by the number and variety of products that are now available. However, there is little evidence to support their use. This story reports on a recent review of the available literature on the evidence that zinc improves the outcomes in individuals with colds. Thestory does an excellent job of laying out the problem, describing the new information available from the literature review, and putting it into context for the reader. The story does a good job of describing how many studies showed no effect of the zinc products. In the one study showing a benefit of zinc nasal gel, the story provides quantification of benefits in natural frequencies (days of duration of the cold) rather than in terms of relative reduction. The story does a great job of describing the design of the current study, which is a special kind of literature review andquotes an independent expert as well as the lead author on the current study and the representative of the manufacturer. Overall, this was a very well-written story, free of hype and full of helpful information.