instruction:
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.
question:
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.
answer:
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.

question:
Paragraph: "U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio used his first speech on the Senate floor, on June 14, 2011, to evoke the American dream. The so-called maiden speech is a ""big deal for a senator,"" said fellow Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and Rubio went for big ideas. ""America is not perfect,"" said the freshman Republican, the child of Cuban immigrants. ""... But since her earliest days, America has inspired people from all over the world. Inspired them with the hope that one day their own countries would be one like this one. Many others decided they could not wait. And so they came here from everywhere, to pursue their dreams and to work to leave their children better off than themselves. And the result was the American miracle."" As he held the floor for nearly 15 minutes, Rubio highlighted rags-to-riches stories that he said happen ""only in America,"" describing the founders of Nordstrom, Mattel and eBay. When he finished, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., commended him, saying, ""No one expresses American exceptionalism better than Sen. Rubio."" Rubio traced America's role in the 20th century, from two world wars to the Cold War and the defeat of communism. Then he turned to other contributions: While our military and foreign policy contributions helped save the world, it was our economic and cultural innovations that helped transform it. The fruits of the American miracle can be found in the daily lives of people everywhere. Anywhere in the world, when someone uses a mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet or GPS, they are enjoying the benefits of the American miracle. Anywhere in the world, when a bone marrow, lung or heart transplant saves a life, they are touched by the value of the American miracle. And on one night in July of 1969, the whole world witnessed the American miracle firsthand. For on that night an American walked on the surface of the moon, and it was clear to the whole world that these Americans could do anything. We briefly considered wading into fringe conspiracy theories about whether astronauts actually walked on the moon, but got control of ourselves. We were more curious about his other technology claims. Were Americans truly the ones responsible for innovation of the mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet and the global positioning system? We dropped a line to Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos, who provided us with links about inventors of the mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet and GPS. Indeed, stories from The Telegraph (via Huffington Post), NPR, the Internet Society, PBS and MITnews identify American origins for all four technologies. But these are complex systems that have developed over time. We wondered: Was there more to the story? Mobile phone A lot fits under the umbrella ""mobile phone"" -- including, say, early radio technology that led to car phones by the 1940s. But Rubio's spokesman pointed to the inventor of the first portable cellular phone, which is fine by us. (Did you think of dawn-of-the-1900s ship-to-shore communication when Rubio said ""mobile phone""? We didn't think so.) Martin Cooper worked for Illinois company Motorola as it developed the DynaTAC phone and the cellular network behind it in the early 1970s. The lead engineer for the team that developed the phone, Martin made the first wireless call from Manhattan in 1973. The FCC approved the phone -- the world's first commercial portable cell phone -- for regular folks in 1983. Now, Japan and some European countries were quicker to deploy cellular networks, in the late '70s and very early '80s. But Paul Levinson, a Fordham University professor who wrote the 2004 book ""Cellphone: The Story of the World's Most Mobile Medium and How It Has Transformed Everything!"" says it's the phone that matters. ""That was the breakthrough,"" he said ""There were several different companies and scientists working on it. But no one believed that it could be done. So everything that came afterwards was based on that first breakthrough."" An American breakthrough. Score one for Rubio. Internet & E-mail We read the work from the Internet Society and PBS that Burgos sent our way, then exchanged messages with Stephen Stein, who teaches the history of technology at the University of Memphis. Computer networks that led to the Internet we know today include Arpanet , a 1970s project of the U.S. Department of Defense, and NSFnet, created by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s. These projects, with their indisputably American roots, provided two cornerstones of the modern-day Web: the TCP/IP protocol and a major communications backbone. But Stein pointed out that the way we interact with the Internet owes much to the work of Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist who worked for CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Switzerland. It was there -- in the late '80s as NSFnet was being developed in the United States -- that Berners-Lee ""developed the whole concept of the World Wide Web,"" Stein said. (There's more on this in a PBS article related to the one Burgos sent.) HTTP? HTML? Both Berners-Lee. ""So, yes, Americans developed the Internet, but Berners-Lee made it user-friendly,"" Stein said. Meanwhile, Virginia Tech scholar Janet Abbate says in her 1999 book ""Inventing the Internet,"" published by MIT Press, that even in the expansion of Arpanet , Americans enlisted the help of computer experts from England and France. She also points to Berners-Lee's contributions, saying, ""The history of the Internet is not a story of a few heroic inventors; it is a tale of collaboration and conflict among a remarkable variety of players."" The origins of e-mail, as you might expect, are entwined with the Internet. Electronic mail was part of the development of Arpanet in the early '70s, according to Stein, Abbate and others. American programmer Ray Tomlinson gets credit (and tongue-in-cheek blame) for the first working network mail program, picked up by users of Arpanet sites. Here's what Abbate told us when we asked her about Rubio's claim. ""I think it's an overstatement to call the Internet a purely American product. Certainly other countries were building their own computer networks (and inter-networks) in parallel with the U.S.; these other networks eventually became part of the Internet,"" Abbate said. ""Also, the Internet itself (as opposed to the earlier Apranet) was a collaborative effort with input from computer scientists in France and elsewhere, and I argue in my book that the diversity of input made the resulting system stronger. I do think the U.S. did a remarkably good job with the Internet design and expansion, maybe better than anyone else would or could have done. But if the resulting Internet hadn't suited other countries' needs, they were perfectly capable of creating their own networks (indeed, for a while there were a number of different competing network systems before TCP/IP eventually became the standard). ""And of course, the World Wide Web was invented at CERN, not in the US or by an American. So does that mean we in the U.S. are enjoying the benefits of the ""Swiss miracle"" every time we use the Web?"" GPS The satellite technology that puts some of the smart in your smart phone and informs your car's navigation system is a system of satellites funded by taxpayers and operated by the U.S. government. So calling the global positioning system an ""American miracle"" is no stretch. The technology was born at Aerospace Corp., a military research contractor in El Segundo, Calif. Its founding president was New York native Ivan Getting. That isn't to say there aren't foreign navigation satellites. The United States cooperates with Australia, China, the European Union, India, Japan and Russia on global navigation satellite systems, sometimes referred to as GNSS. But Rubio said GPS, and the history there is fairly clear -cut. The ruling What to make of all of this? Rubio's basic point, that the technology behind mobile phones, e-mail, the Internet and GPS all have American roots, holds up. It's true ""in a general sense,"" said Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who writes on our relationship with technology. Or, as the University of Memphis professor, Stein, put it: ""The statement is superficially correct, but there is (as usual) more to the story."" Stein was most concerned about the non-American role in the development of the Internet, especially the substantial contribution of England's Berners-Lee. It's also important to note in the context of Rubio's ""only in America"" rhetoric that while the United States led, it wasn't alone in its innovation. Other nations' researchers contributed to the early Internet; commercial mobile phone networks were available overseas before they were in America; other nations operate satellite navigation systems. But in these areas and many others, Americans can claim primacy." Claim: Anywhere in the world, when someone uses a mobile phone, e-mail, the Internet or GPS, they are enjoying the benefits of the American miracle.
answer:
Rubio says mobile phone, e-mail, Internet, GPS stem from 'American miracle'

question:
Paragraph: Though the article does not mention costs or compare costs of garlic and garlic supplements with other treatments,many readers will be familiar with these. The story reports that the consumption of garlic in any of three forms (raw, powdered supplement, aged extract supplement) had no effect on LDL cholesterol or triglycerides. To quantify this non-effect in mm/dL is unnecessary, and would have been numbing for the average health news consumer. A majority (57%) of individuals in the trial who ate garlic-laced sandwiches reported bad breath and body odor, a "harm" the story neglected to mention. The article reflects an appreciation for the hierarchy of evidence, noting that "there was good evidence in test-tube and animal studies" that garlic could lower LDL cholesterol, and explains the randomization methods in the new clinical trial. No obvious elements of disease-mongering. The article cites four sources and provides sufficient information about their potential conflicts of interest. The article fails to mention alternative methods for lowering cholesterol, though many readers may be familiar with these (most prominently exercise, diet, and drugs). Most readers will be familiar with the availability of the health interventions studiedraw garlic and garlic supplements. The story rightly notes that garlic is not a new "treatment" for high cholesterol. No obvious use of text from a press release. Claim: Garlic powerless against cholesterol
answer:
This is little gem of a storya 454-word precis that lays out a succinct history of the research on garlic's purported success in lowering LDL cholesterol (lab and animal studies), describes the methods and results of a new randomized trial in adults who have moderately high cholesterol, adds the voices of four sources representing a variety of viewpoints and interests, and entertains the reader in the deal. Unfortunately, the story doesn't perfectly satisfy all of our criteria: In another 50 words or so it could have mentioned the costs of supplements, the incidental "harms" of consuming garlic (bad breath and body odor) and alternative methods for lowering cholesterol (e.g. exercise, diet, and drugs). Fortunately, many readers will be familiar with these. The story might also have added one more caveat (noted in an accompanying editorial): that atherosclerosis is an extremely complex problem involving much more than cholesterol and that, conceivably, garlic might help trim some other risk factor important to our cardiovascular health. (Charlson M, Arch Intern Med 2007;167:325-6)