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: Given that this is an illegal substance banned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, cost as a therapeutic would be difficult to ascertain. We liked that the story took pains to explain that approval of this drug faces many hurdles. This is a tough one. While the story tells us what percentage of patients benefited from treatment, it does not, in fact, quantify the extent of those benefitswhich is precisely what this category is designed to assess. However, the story does do a goodand thoroughjob of describing the benefits in qualitative terms. That said, if the story had only chosen one or two examples of changes in the standardized measures of depression or anxiety, this would have received an enthusiastic "Satisfactory" rating. One strong word of caution though: The story cites one source as saying that psilocybin may one day be used to treat a wide range of mental health issues ranging from drug addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder. The story offers no evidence to support these claims, which were made by a source associated with an organization that exists specifically to promote research on hallucinogens. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. The story would have been much stronger if it had eliminated the unsubstantiated remarks from the source particularly since they had no bearing on the subject of the story. The story addresses this issue thoroughly. Well done. The story does a good job of both describing the design of the studies and explaining why the study design is relevant. For example, the story notes: "But both [studies] were considered to be double-blind placebo trials the gold-standard of medical research in which subjects are left to guess whether they have gotten the active study drug or an inactive lookalike." This is the sort of thing we like to see. However, we did want to note that in the NYU study, researchers did state in the limitations section that there was "limited blinding" how did that possibly affect the outcomes? No disease mongering here. However, the story should have been more cautious about claims of benefit for conditions ranging far beyond the scope of the research at hand, which focused on mental health problems among people with advanced cancer. The story clearly states who funded the studies, and what that organization's long-term goals are. Further, the story clearly identified individuals quoted in the story who have ties to the studies or the funding organization. Lastly, the story incorporates input from an independent expert. However, the story would have been stronger if there had been a skeptical take on the research, which sawin some other coverage, such as this New York Times piece. The story does not address other treatment options for anxiety or depression, such as talk therapy or other pharmaceutical interventions. The story does a good job here. For example, the story notes: "[F]inding drugs like psilocybin effective is by no means the final hurdle to their widespread availability. None are currently in production, and no for-profit pharmaceutical company would likely invest millions of dollars to bring to market a pill intended effectively for one-time use." Well done. This is a close call. The story does do a good job of placing the work in context in regard to overall research involving hallucinogens. That's enough to earn it a "Satisfactory" rating. However, the story doesn't mention any of the work done in the past 10 years on the use of psilocybin specifically to address anxiety in cancer patients, such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. Are the results from the two new studies consistent with these earlier findings? Do they differ in a meaningful way? That would be good to know. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Ingredient in magic mushrooms is shown to ease anxiety and depression in cancer patients in one dose
[EX A]: The story focuses on two recent studies that find a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The studies were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, and can be found here and here. In some ways, the story is thorough, addressing potential side effects and conflicts of interest very well. The story discusses the potential benefits in depth, which is good, but fails to quantify those benefits which is problematic. The story also does a good job of placing the work in context, highlighting the increasing profile of research into the use of hallucinogens as therapeutic tools for mental health problems. However, the story would have been even stronger if it had discussed the existing literature on the use of psilocybin to address anxiety in cancer patients. We also reviewed twonews releases related to the research: Depression and other mental health struggles are common and significant among people with cancer, especially terminal cancer. This makes it especially important for reporters to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this story. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don't want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. Overall, this story does a nice job of handling a delicate subject well.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: WisCorps has hired someone with a visual impairment and another person with a physical disability to work on erosion control and planting in neighborhood parks, and building accessible gardens this summer, Wisconsin Public Radio (http://bit.ly/2s8XH2P) reported. WisCorps Executive Director Matthew Brantner said the group is being called the Inclusive Crew. "Whether it's a physical barrier or just a barrier to entry into the workforce, we want to be able to remove that and get young people into the workforce and have young people of all abilities come in and conserve our state's natural resources and revitalize our communities," he said. The goal is to expand the concept to all of the program's work crews by next summer, he said. More than 40 percent of people with disabilities in the state are unemployed, according to 2016 statistics. Inclusive Crew program coordinator Andrea Frisch says she hopes to make nature available to everyone. "Scientifically, there are studies that say spending time in nature you have better outcomes for stress management," she said. "Some individuals with different disabilities, for example autism, being outdoors and doing nature activities helps people focus and helps people experience things that they wouldn't typically experience." ___ Information from: Wisconsin Public Radio, http://www.wpr.org Claim: Conservation program hopes to help people of all abilities.
[EX A]: An environmental conservation program based in western Wisconsin plans to expand its work opportunities and environmental education program to people of all abilities.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The number of Americans age 90 and older nearly tripled in the past three decades, to the current 1.9 million from 720,000 in 1980, said a report from the U.S. Census Bureau. That number may reach 9 million by 2050, according to the report titled "90+ in the United States: 2006-2008." "I think it's going to grow even faster than predicted in the report," said Richard Suzman, director of behavioral and social research at the National Institute on Aging, which commissioned the study. More folks over the age of 90 means increased stress on pension and retirement funds, health care costs and caretaker relationships with younger generations, the study said. A person who makes it to 90 years old today is expected to live almost another five years, the study said. And, a person who lives to celebrate a 100th birthday is likely to live another 2.3 years. An increase in education, improvements to nutrition and public health, a decline in smoking, diabetes controls and a reduction in strokes have been major factors contributing to the aging boom, Suzman said. The report, which details the demographic, health and economic status of the oldest Americans, is based on the 2006- 2008 American Community Survey. It was released on the U.S. Census Bureau website. "This is very important data for policy makers and researchers to start considering whether to change the definition for oldest-old from 85 to 90-plus," said Wan He, a Census Bureau demographer and an author on the report. The so-called "oldest-old" in the United States has generally been defined as 85 and older. Given the aging boom and increased life expectancy, that marker may now be inching closer to 90, researchers said, and it's important to understand the differences among the older population. For example, of people aged 85-89, about 69 percent reportedly have a disability, which might include trouble hearing or seeing or a physical limitation. At ages 90-94, that number jumps to nearly 83 percent. Other study findings showed that the 90-plus population in the United States is overwhelmingly white with most earning a high school diploma. Education is linked to a number of factors related to a person's well-being, according to the report, with higher education linked to lower mortality rates and better overall health. Women over the age of 90 outnumbered men by nearly 3 to 1, according to the report. Nearly 80 percent of those women were widowed while more than 40 percent of the men 90 or older are married, it said. Claim: Ranks of people reaching age 90 tripled since 1980: report.
[EX A]:
The ranks of the nation's oldest residents are growing quickly now that people who reach age 90 are expected to live longer than ever before, according to a study released on Thursday.