TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The black rhinos died of salt poisoning following the decision by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to ignore water test results in Tsavo East National Park, the committee's report said. The deaths of the endangered animals, being moved to a more secure home in the face of the threat from poachers, were a major embarrassment to Kenya, which sells itself as destination for wildlife tourism. The inquiry said WWF, which donated $1 million for the relocation in June 2018, applied pressure on KWS to speed up the process in a bid to generate positive publicity and secure funding for itself from Germany. WWF denied the allegations in the inquiry report, which was made public last week, saying KWS had carried out hydrological surveys and given assurances the park was safe and suitable. "At no point either before or during the translocations were any issues raised about the quality of the water on the site," WWF said by email. "We would never push for a translocation to go ahead against the recommendations of the relevant experts. This was a tragedy we hope will never be repeated." The parliamentary committee's inquiry said the relocation took place during a period in 2018 when the term of one KWS board had ended and before a new one had begun, creating a lack of oversight. The report said KWS's former board of trustees had rejected the relocation three times in part because of the high salinity levels of the drinking water in the park. The report said Najib Balala, the minister of tourism and wildlife, should take overall responsibility for the rhinos' deaths because he delayed the appointment of the new KWS board. The minister's spokesman declined to comment. The KWS could not be immediately reached to comment. However, Richard Leakey, former chairperson of KWS, told the inquiry: "WWF-Kenya, as the funding entity, was alleged to have had a major interference onthe board resolution against the translocation, and consequently pushed for theexercise after the exit of the board." WWF said it was saddened by the loss of the rhinos and it fully recognized the "serious failings of this operation". "In response, we have strengthened existing practices and implemented brand new organizational guidelines to mitigate future risk as far as possible." Kenya had a rhino population of 1,258 in 2017 of which 745 were black rhinos, 510 were southern white rhinos and three were northern white rhinos, having grown from less than 400 rhinos in the 1980s. Poaching has risen in recent years across sub-Saharan Africa where well-armed criminal gangs have killed elephants for tusks and rhinos for horns. Often the animal parts are shipped to Asia for use in ornaments and medicines. Claim: WWF says it did not push for rhino relocation process where 11 died.

SOLUTION: The World Wildlife Fund has rejected the findings of a Kenyan parliamentary inquiry that said the conservation group pushed Kenyan authorities to speed up a botched relocation of 14 rhinos last year that led to the deaths of 11 animals.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Senate Republicans' surprise move to repeal the requirement to have health insurance into their tax reform bill revealed numbers that few people had noted before. (The mandate says that everyone must have coverage or face a fine.) ""80 percent of the tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less,"" Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Nov. 15. ""We're taking a failed policy that punishes people with taxes -- low-income people. (We're) taking that tax away, giving them tax relief there, and then ploughing that back into tax relief for middle-income families."" This was no throw-away line. Thune is the third-ranking Republican in the party's Senate leadership, and his colleagues delivered similar versions of the talking point throughout the day. In 2016, the fine for not having insurance stood at $695 for adults. The formula has a few wrinkles that brought the maximum penalty to $2,085 for a family, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever was larger. Going forward, it rises with inflation (unless of course, Congress repeals it). Not everyone without insurance has to pay the fine. The list of exemptions is long. It includes a family with income under $20,800; people who have suffered domestic violence in the household; anyone who has suffered the death of a close family member; someone who has receiveda utility shut-off notice, and more. Thune's office said he got his information from 2015 data from the Internal Revenue Service. In one key sense, Thune is correct. Out of all the tax returns sent to the IRS that included a payment of the fine, 79 percent came from households making $50,000 a year or less. (Technically, the income is adjusted gross income, which understates actual income. But on average, the adjustment makes little difference for this check.) However, Thune didn't specify that he was talking about the number of people. His description of the tax could just as equally refer to the dollars paid. The government collected a little over $3 billion from about 6.6 million households. Of that, about $1.8 billion, 60 percent, came from households with incomes under $50,000. So in dollar terms, about 60 percent of the tax fell on people in that income range, not the 80 percent that Thune said. Thune's communications staff told us he was talking about the number of people and the number of returns. We reached several health care and tax researchers, and none of them challenged the core numbers. Gordon Mermin with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ran the numbers and found that as a percentage of income, the tax fell heaviest on the $25,000 to $50,000 group. On average, that group paid 3.1 percent of income. Mermin told us households in this range are more likely to lack insurance, and due to their incomes, are less likely to be able to claim an exemption from the fine. ""People shouldn't be surprised the $25,000 to $50,000 group is affected the most,"" Mermin said. But researchers found it odd that people making less than $25,000 had paid as much as they did. The $10,000 to $25,000 group accounted for 22 percent of the payments, and about 36 percent of the households. ""Folks are just making a mistake,"" said Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare and an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ""Given the exemptions, there is no way such low-income folks should be paying."" The IRS knows this has happened. It's been sending out letters since 2015, telling filers ""it appears that you may have reported owing too much Health Care Shared Responsibility Payment,"" the penalty's formal name. ""The IRS has reached out to some taxpayers to let them know they've overpaid the penalty, but they don't have the capacity to do that in all cases,"" said Tara Straw at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. Straw said the IRS targets people who automatically qualify for an exemption because of their income, a factor that is stronger in states that did not expand Medicaid to people making 138 percent of federal poverty. Where the IRS effort falls short, she said, relates to personal circumstances such as a death in the family or a utility service cut-off notice. Larry Levitt at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a neutral source of health care data, also agreed that ""there certainly appear to be some low-income people paying the penalty who could be claiming an exemption."" A just-released study from Kaiser suggests the number could be large. The report found that about 5 million uninsured people could get coverage for less than the cost of the penalty. Thanks to the subsidies in Obamacare, the lowest-level plans would be free to many of those people, or if not free, available at a very low cost. If everyone took advantage of those subsidies, the 6.6 million households paying the penalty because they lack coverage would fall significantly. We don't know how the numbers would shake out because about 4 million people neither paid the fine nor told the IRS that they had coverage. Republicans offer the repeal of the penalty as a boon to working Americans, and for some it would be. But the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, has found that removing the penalty makes it less likely that people will seek out insurance, even if it would be free or very affordable. Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There's strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine." Claim: 80 percent of the (individual mandate) tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less.

SOLUTION: Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There's strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: While there was no mention of coffee cost, this element is not particulary germane to this story. The article reported that drinking four eight-ounce cups of coffee was linked to a 30% reduction in the risk of developing diabetes. Rather than relative reduction, the article should have included the absolute reduction. The rate at which women who drank coffee developed type II diabetes was 6.05% while the rate in women who drank 4-5 cups of coffee per day was 4.30%. The relative difference always sounds more convincing; the absolute difference is what is probably most meaningful to viewers. So, in this case, a 30% relative difference equated to an absolute difference of less than 2%. There was no mention of potential harms that might be derived from increased coffee consumption. The article could have included concern about disrupted sleep, heart palpitations, increased urinary frequency, and jitteriness. Because of the design of the study covered in this story (a prospective epidemiologic study), it is not possible to conclude that increasing decaffeinated coffee consumption will decrease the risk of type II diabetes. This important point was covered by one of the physician quotes in the story. The speculation about what was in decaf coffee that resulted in the decreased risk of type II diabetes was not well grounded. Other than painting perhaps a little too rosy picture of all the potential benefits that might be gained from coffee consumption, this article did not practice disease mongering. It did not present any data on the prevalence of type II diabetes. The story could have mentioned that the Type II diabetes has become rather common place and is a public health issue. It appears that this story is based on a research study in the Archives of Internal Medicine and from comments by one physician and one researcher. It certainly would have been better to actually mention where the study was published rather than referring to it as "the study out today". It would also have been better to give us some perspective about the value of the quotes provided by giving some background on the two people interviewed. Nonethless, we credit the story for having different perspectives. There was no mention of other lifestyle strategies that an individual might pursue in order to lower the risk of type II diabetes. This is a particularly important public health message. Moderate daily physical activity, such as walking, has also been shown to lower the risk of type II diabetes. The story isn't about a treatment per se, but about the effects of drinking coffee, which is readily available to all. The story is quite clear about the widespread availability and use of coffee. There is a growing body of literature suggesting that coffee drinking can lower one's risk of type II diabetes. This story covered the latest such evidence, and made it clear that this is part of a growing body of "more intriguing evidence." There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Coffee found to reduce risk of diabetes

SOLUTION:
There is a growing body of literature suggesting that coffee drinking can lower one's risk of type II diabetes. This story covered the latest such evidence, and made it clear that this is part of a growing body of "more intriguing evidence." In a brief story (less than 350 words), ABC News did a decent job of covering the latest research. A brief review of the problem of Type 2 diabetes would have been helpful to anchor the piece, along with a review of ways to prevent the disease (avoid becoming overweight, daily exercise, dietary modification).This article reported on the results of a study in the June 26, 2006 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine which found that increased use of decaf coffee was associated with decreased risk of developing type II diabetes. The article reported this inaccurately as "The study out today found decaffeinated coffee is just as effective against diabetes as regular coffee, because both are loaded with the same nutrients." In fact, the study found that while decaffeinated coffee was found to be associated with a statistically significant lower risk of developing type II diabetes, caffeinated coffee was not. The story did not address an obvious question: if coffee consumption is so beneficial for reducing the risk of developing type II diabetes, then why is the incidence of this disease on the rise at the same time that Americans are consuming more coffee? Nonethless, in a brief TV news story, ABC News covered many of the bases (and addressed a majority of our criteria).