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: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provideddata showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin Dsupplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit fromtaking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when itsuggests thatadolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it neverspecifies how much they are getting now, how much more they'd need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence thathigh levels of vitamin D mayhave adverseeffects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increasein the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that claims of benefit fromextra vitamin D are based onobservational studiesthat most scientists agree "cannot determine cause and effect." We also like that the story solicitedopinions froma variety of expertswith noobvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasizedthe need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: "I think thisreport will make people more cautious" and "The onus is on thepeople who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show itis safe before they push it on people." Although we agree with the story's skeptical overall message,we think itmay haveslammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibilityof benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currentlyavailable evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact,research isnow underway to determine whether the benefits foundin observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn't go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts,someof whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchersmight beexplained bytheir significant career and financialinterests in promoting vitamin D. Notapplicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there's notreally any alternative to getting adequate amountsof these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we'll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements
[EX A]: In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higherlevels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then seguedimmediatelyinto an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates "are not supported by the available evidence."The key problem, as the story points out, isthat these claimsare based almost exclusively on observationalstudies that can't prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven't accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay thepossibility that higher doses of vitamin Dand calcium might cause harma stance which the storynotesmay not be justified. We applaudthis story'seffort toshow readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D isthe latest in a longline of "miracle" nutrients that people have turnedto in the hope of improvingtheir health. As we'velearnedfrom copiousprevious experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised andcan sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn't necessarilybetter when it comes to vitamin Dor most other health care interventions for that matter.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "It's time to go back on offense," Lechleiter said in a recent interview. New treatments for diabetes and cancer now awaiting approval and increased sales of animal-health products and drugs in China and Japan are some of the aggressive moves he has in mind. He is also counting on a robust success rate among three dozen other experimental drugs now in mid- and late-stage trials, including a cancer drug called ramucirumab. "We're on the cusp of launching products in cancer and diabetes, two therapeutic areas where we're well established and where we have built out the infrastructure we need," Lechleiter said. "And we believe that's going to be the beginning of our return to growth." Skeptical investors only now appear to be catching on to Lilly's potential upside. After rising only 3 percent in 2013, badly underperforming a 27 percent average advance for other large drugmakers, the stock is up 6 percent this month. "Instead of having to play defense and manage through this difficult patent cliff, the company will be able to use additional cash flow to invest in its pipeline, to partner with others or make bolt-on acquisitions," said Atlantic Equities analyst Richard Purkiss. "The outlook is much brighter, and they'll try to get that message across in coming months." Lilly, which reports quarterly and 2013 results on Thursday, has forecast earnings of $2.77 to $2.85 per share this year, the final and worst year of its patent cliff. That's 41 percent less than 2010. Lilly last year sought U.S. approvals for four drugs, three of which Lechleiter said could be approved in 2014: ramucirumab for stomach cancer, and dulaglutide and empagliflozin for type 2 diabetes - the most common form of diabetes, which is closely linked to obesity. Analysts have forecast annual sales of more than $650 million for ramucirumab, saying sales could be far higher if the drug also wins approval for cancers of the colon, lung or liver. But they caution that the diabetes drugs may have a hard time competing against existing options. Lechleiter said Lilly plans to seek approval of necitumumab for squamous-cell lung cancer this year. The medicine, like ramucirumab, was acquired by Lilly through its $6.5 billion purchase of ImClone Systems in 2008. If approved, necitumumab could capture eventual annual sales of more than $1 billion, analysts say. Such sales could make a big difference for Lilly, whose annual revenue of $20 billion is far lower than Big Pharma rivals like Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co. In the meantime, Lilly is testing nearly 40 medicines in mid- and late stage studies, compared with only 7 in those stages of development a decade ago. They include new treatments for cholesterol, psoriasis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's disease. Animal health unit Elanco, with annual sales of about $2 billion, is thriving as Lilly introduces new products and has expanded the business in China and other fast-growing markets. Many analysts are wary, however, of the company's ability to win approvals of prescription drugs because it has not launched any major products in recent years and has suffered setbacks in clinical trials, including ramucirumab's failure to delay progression of breast cancer. Of 20 analysts tracked by Thomson Reuters, 12 have hold or sell ratings on Lilly, versus 8 with buy ratings. Lilly shares trade at 19 times expected 2014 per-share earnings, compared to a price-to-earnings ratio of 14.6 for other large drugmakers. That could be more a reflection of the company's poor earnings this year than excitement about the stock. "We believe that overall the pipeline will disappoint investors," said Alex Arfaei of BMO Capital Markets in a research note, citing low sales expectations for ramucirumab and the new diabetes drugs. When Lilly's Zyprexa was confronted with cheaper generic treatments for schizophrenia in October 2011, it faced one of the industry's steepest patent cliffs ever, quickly losing 80 percent of its onetime $5 billion in annual sales. Similarly precipitous declines are expected for Cymbalta, Lilly's $5 billion-a-year antidepressant, which lost U.S. patent protection last month, and for blockbuster osteoporosis treatment Evista, which goes generic in March. Many other large drugmakers, when faced with patent expirations and earnings declines of lesser scope, have resorted to megamergers to cushion the blow from generics and prop up earnings with cost savings. Huge layoffs, sapped morale and poor track records in introducing new drugs are more common results. Pfizer Inc stands out, having snapped up U.S. rivals Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia and Wyeth since 2000. Lechleiter, who began his career at Lilly in 1979 as a senior organic chemist, has steadfastly spurned any suggestion of a big merger: "It's never entered our minds, and we remain adamantly opposed." John Boris, an analyst for Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, said he expects Lilly earnings to grow an average of 10 percent a year between 2015 and 2020, which would make it second to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co in profit growth over that period. Atlantic Equities' Purkiss said he anticipates Lilly will deliver industry-topping earnings growth in the "mid-teens" percentage range in 2015, 2016 and 2017. "The sentiment has been very negative on Lilly, but it looks like it will go from one of the most growth-starved to the fastest growing of the major U.S. drugmakers and the European players," Purkiss said. By avoiding a disruptive megamerger, Lilly has allowed itself to press ahead with ambitious research, said Barclays analyst Tony Butler. He said to date the company has met long-term sales and earnings forecasts it provided in 2009 - before patents went over the cliff - while maintaining its generous dividend, with a current yield of 3.6 percent. "At the time, the market was incredibly skeptical about Lilly's ability to fund its dividend and to have enough remaining cash flow to fund its business," said Butler. "Lilly proved everybody wrong." (This story has been refiled to change second subhead) Claim: Lilly CEO: 'It's time to go back on offense'.
[EX A]: After three years of seeing major drugs like Zyprexa for schizophrenia lose patent protection and wipe away billions of dollars in revenue, Eli Lilly and Co Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter wants to change the game plan.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "During the first Democratic presidential debate in October 2015, Hillary Clinton proclaimed, ""We've got to be committed to getting every child to live up to his or her God-given potential."" Cynthia Meyer, who took up the post of deputy press secretary for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in early 2015, fired back with a tweet, ""Would help if they had the chance to be born."" About a month later, in the next Democratic debate Nov. 14, 2015, the episode was repeated. Clinton echoed her earlier comment, again declaring, ""Every single one of our children deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential."" This time, Meyer responded by tweeting, ""More black babies are aborted in NYC than born,"" followed by the hashtag #blacklivesmatter. NYC meaning the city of New York. The pair of exchanges elicited a strong sense of deja vu, but Meyer's second tweet raised a more specific question about abortion rates among black women in the Big Apple: Are there more abortions by black women in NYC than births? To our inquiry, over email Meyer said her responses were an effort to highlight the value of human life and call attention to NYC's ""startling"" numbers, which come from a 2013 report on pregnancy outcomes compiled by the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Bureau of Vital Statistics. The numbers have been widely reported by conservative media outlets, including a National Review article that Meyer emailed to us. ""To be clear, that tweet came from my personal Twitter account and I was speaking as a private citizen,"" Meyer said in an email. ""Happy to defend the stats, though."" Abortions by black women in NYC outpacing births? Figuring out the answer to this question proved rather simple. The first place we went was that 2013 report, the most recent data available, which provides exhaustive breakdowns of birth statistics in New York City. The agency lists pregnancy outcomes by race and ethnicity, as well as by borough, type of birth (live birth, C-section, premature) and health of the mother. According to the report, in 2013 black women accounted for 29,007 terminated pregnancies, representing almost 42 percent of all abortions in the city. That same year, black women in the city gave birth to 24,108 babies. With abortions surpassing live births by nearly 5,000, African American women in the city clearly terminated pregnancies more often than they carried babies to term. Black women terminated pregnancies at a rate of 67.3 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 49, a rate far higher than any other racial or ethnic group. We checked: the statistics were similar the previous year, when African American women in the city had 24,758 births and underwent 31,328 abortions. The numbers for black women in NYC starkly contrasted with women in other racial and ethnic categories. In 2013, births far surpassed abortions for white, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander women. Hispanic women accounted for the second-most abortions in the city with 21,555, but they also had 35,581 live births. Asian women had both the fewest abortions and fewest births, while white women accounted for the most births overall and second-fewest abortions. There was less discrepancy between the number of births and terminated pregnancies for black women statewide. In 2013, black women in New York state gave birth to 36,130 babies and underwent 34,960 abortions, according to the state's health department. During the previous year, the numbers were almost dead even, with black women accounting for 36,905 births and 36,633 abortions across the state. The numbers are far different for the four biggest cities in Texas. The Texas Department of State Health Services reports births by both county and city, but abortions are only reported by county. We examined the numbers in 2013 for Bexar, Dallas, Harris and Travis Counties, which contain the cities of San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Austin, respectively. In all four counties, black women had more live births than abortions. The same was for white women in those counties. For Harris County, which includes Houston, the largest city in Texas and fourth-largest city nationwide, black women had 12,569 live births and5,515 abortions, while white women accounted for 16,247 births and 2,661 abortions. If you'd like to peruse the numbers for all four counties, we input the data into a Google spreadsheet for easier side-by-side comparison. It's important to note that abortion access across the state of Texas stands in stark contrast to NYC. Texas currently has 19operating abortion clinics, but that number would drop to 10 if the U.S. Supreme Court allows the state's contested 2013 law to fully take effect. In contrast, New York state has 80 abortion clinics. Attitudes toward abortion also differ greatly between the two states. Nationally in 2009, black women had abortions far more often than white and Hispanic women, according to data compiled in December 2013 by the National Center for Health Statistics. For some perspective, an online search turned up a 2008 Guttmacher Policy Review article by Susan A. Cohen, a vice president for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that promotes reproductive health and abortion rights. Cohen, saying the national abortion rate for black women is almost five times the rate for white women, suggested this is greatly explained by higher incidences of unintended pregnancy among African American residents. Higher rates, Cohen wrote, ""reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time. Moreover, these realities must be seen in a larger context in which significant racial and ethnic disparities persist for a wide range of health outcomes, from diabetes to heart disease to breast and cervical cancer to sexually transmitted infections (STI), including HIV."" In examining the socioeconomic factors behind this phenomena, Cohen disputed the idea that black women are recruited into having more abortions, a sentiment that has been shared by anti-abortion activists and conservative politicians. These issues were also extensively explored last September by Zoe Dutton in a piece for The Atlantic called ""Abortion's Racial Gap."" GOP leaders have used these statistics to argue against abortion, positing that it disproportionately affects black communities. In August, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson articulated this stance in relation to Planned Parenthood, claiming during an appearance on Fox News that the organization has contributed to abortion being ""the number one cause of death for black people."" The leading causes of death for black Americans are actually heart disease, cancer and stroke, according to the CDC, but Carson's rhetoric speaks to the GOP's broader stance against abortion. The debate over abortion has taken on more fervor in recent years as many states have introduced increased abortion restrictions. Texas has led in this area, in 2013 enacting a law requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the standards of surgical centers and employ doctors with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. In November 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of those two provisions as undue burdens on women seeking abortions. Our ruling: A Hillary Clinton declaration that every child should be allowed to live up to his potential prompted a tweet from a spokeswoman for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that ""More black babies are aborted in NYC than born."" The tweet from Deputy Press Secretary Cynthia Meyer echoes what has become a talking point among anti-abortion activists, that abortion disproportionately affects the nation's African American population. Nationally, African American women had a higher rate of abortion than whites, Hispanics or Asians, according to 2013 figures. Even so, black women gave birth more than they terminated pregnancies that year. The same was not for New York City, where more abortions were recorded for black woman than live births in both 2012 and 2013, the most recent available data. -- The statement is accurate and there's nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. CLARIFICATION, 4:20 p.m., Dec. 1, 2015: We amended this fact check to clarify that the described 2013 abortion rate for black women related to women aged 15 to 49. This change did not affect our rating." Claim: More black babies are aborted in NYC than born.
[EX A]:
: A Hillary Clinton declaration that every child should be allowed to live up to his potential prompted a tweet from a spokeswoman for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that "More black babies are aborted in NYC than born." The tweet from Deputy Press Secretary Cynthia Meyer echoes what has become a talking point among anti-abortion activists, that abortion disproportionately affects the nation's African American population. Nationally, African American women had a higher rate of abortion than whites, Hispanics or Asians, according to 2013 figures. Even so, black women gave birth more than they terminated pregnancies that year. The same was not true for New York City, where more abortions were recorded for black woman than live births in both 2012 and 2013, the most recent available data.