Instructions: 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.
Input: Paragraph: The story accurately represents the cost of the scans, which are often not covered by insurance. The story could have mentioned that once a scan finds something suspicious, biopsies and/or follow-up scans are needed at regular intervals, driving up the costs. These additional scans are typically covered by insurance. The evidence doesn't show a clear estimate of survival benefit, which the story made clear. The story mentions that CT scanning could lead to unnecessary harms and procedures. The story could have specifically mentioned radiation exposure. The story does a good job of describing the current study and the controversy around the results. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of lung cancer. The story quotes multiple experts who provide valuable perspective. The story accurately describes that there aren't really any alternatives to preventing death from lung cancer other than quitting smoking. Lung CT scans are clearly available. Clearly screening for lung cancer is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, it's clear that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. Claim: Shades of gray: Debate continues over diagnostic scans for lung cancer
Output:
The idea of lung cancer screening is certainly appealing. Lung cancer is common and deadly, very often found too late for treatment to be effective. So what if you could find it early? Unfortunately the results of studies on CT screening haven't supported this fully and the largest and most rigorous study to date is still years away from providing answers. This story does an excellent job of describing the promise and controversy of lung cancer screening. It presents the results of the contradictory studies and explains why some experts are hesitant to apply the conclusions of the 2006 study to policy decisions mandating screening. The story accurately represents the cost of the scans, which are often not covered by insurance. The story could have mentioned that once a scan finds something suspicious, follow-up scans are needed at regular intervals, driving up the costs. These additional scans are typically covered by insurance. Overall, a fine piece of reporting, following up on a state court ruling.