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.

Paragraph: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that 'Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate', it didn't actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While theremay beevidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn't any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can't be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all
This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn't my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinicalexperts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.

Paragraph: "The story mentioned that the test carried a $399 price tag. Of course there are larger cost perspectives. If this diagnostic test truly has value, it might lead to more targeted therapy perhaps decreasing overall medical costs. If it is a poor test, it may increase medical costs beyond the initial $399 for the test itself. The story included discussion about how this test might be of benefit; it did not include quantification of benefit (i.e. :how much faster could it enable a clinician to make a diagnosis?) though one of the points of the story was that the actual benefit of this test was somewhat imprecise. Lastly the statement that any information is good is a red herring. However, we'll again give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story discussed problems associated with false positive or false negative results. It mentioned that physicians might not have the appropriate training to understand what to do with the results of the test and could make, what an expert quoted in the story described as ""foolish decisions"" The story mentioned that this and other genetic test kits prey on individuals' deepest anxieties. That said there are many more harms possible. Creating the precedent for direct marketing of lab tests even if the results go to the doctor carries significant risks. It could prey on peoples' insecurities, cause financial harm, adversely affect the patient-clinician relationship, and lead to other family members of test positive patients (family members without symptoms) getting a meaningless test due to worry. It was good that the story pointed out that there is little oversight for the accuracy of genetic test kits. Overall the story did a good job; it gave data such as 1% rate of genetic abnormality in unaffected vs. 3% in bipolar patients. It said, ""The report that accompanies those results instructs doctors that a positive test means patients are two to three times more likely to have bipolar disorder."" If the reporter had gone the next step, it would have been even better. For example, if someone has no symptoms of bipolar disorder, then the likelhood of current bipolar is 0% so a 2-3 time increase in risk is still 0. For someone with many symptoms, the risk of bipolar disorder might be 50-60% (rough estimate) and an abnormal test might increase that substantially. Granted, interpreting the quantitative data for readers may be difficult but it would have been helpful to put it into terms that were easier to understand. But in discussing why the test was useful, the company founder said that it was important ""even if it just helps a little bit"". The story should have noted that this lack of quantification of benefit is problematic. We'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included quotes not only from the scientist who developed the test discussed, but from several experts in the field. The story did not make clear how diagnosis of bipolar disorder with the test vs. without the test differed. However it would appear that this may have been intentional as it isn't actually clear how diagnosis of this disorder is dramatically altered in the era where this test is available. The story mentioned that this was a commercially available product. (Though it failed to mention that this test would likely not be covered by insurance, it also did not imply that it would. This, of course, will affect availability.) The story was clear that the test for bipolar disorder it described had been commercially available for about a month. It also mentioned that there about 1000 other test kits (for other genetic traits) which are available. Does not appear to rely on a press release." Claim: At-home gene test stirs up debate
This is an excellent story that used a concrete example (i.e. bipolar disorder) to highlight the pitfalls involved with the use of genetic test kits for gene alleles. Rather than write a story heralding the first commercial availability of a test to identify genetic markers associated with risk of bipolar disorder, this was a thoughtful piece that presented both the hope and the hype associated with the product. While failing to provide concrete estimates for the benefit from the product or diagnostic alternatives, the story painted an accurate picture of the uncertainty for deriving benefit.

Paragraph: "The Sunday news shows broke from their usual coverage of Washington's inner-workings to examine another institution fraught with controversy: the National Football League. The heat is on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for his discipline of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, who was shown in a video leaked last week punching out his now-wife Janay Rice in an Atlantic City, N.J., casino elevator in February. The video's release prompted more voices to question Rice's initial two-game suspension as too lenient, including Goodell, who announced Rice's indefinite suspension amid fallout from the video. To some sports pundits and victim advocates, that's not nearly enough to prove Goodell is for real about punishing players accused of domestic violence. Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise said Goodell should lose his job on CNN's State of the Union. ""The thing that bothered me most is Roger Goodell at one point tried to play essentially a marriage counselor with the victim and the perpetrator, Janay and Ray Rice,"" Wise said. ""He put the victim and the perpetrator together. Every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency, that's a no-no."" Wise continued: ""She is sitting, telling her story in front of the person who essentially abused her. And it's the tone deafness of those types of things that show me that this commissioner does not take domestic violence seriously enough."" PunditFact wondered if Wise is right: Did Goodell talk to victim Janay Rice with Ray Rice present? And does that violate the policy of domestic violence advocacy organizations and law enforcement agencies? The meeting lead-up and fallout An NFL spokesman declined to comment, citing the investigation by former FBI director Robert Mueller of the NFL's actions. The meeting in question occurred June 16 at the NFL's headquarters in New York, three months after a New Jersey grand jury indicted Rice on charges of third-degree aggravated assault from the elevator incident. Ray Rice, who married Janay Rice on March 28, was accepted into a pretrial intervention program to avoid time behind bars in May. The purpose of the mid-June meeting was to discuss disciplinary action by the NFL. Sports Illustrated's Peter King broke the first details about the meeting, citing anonymous inside sources that the NFL has not contradicted. The meeting included not just Goodell and Ray and Janay Rice, but also Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome, Ravens President Dick Cass, and two NFL executives, King reported. In the meeting, Janay Rice asked Goodell to be lenient to Ray Rice, the source told King, saying major discipline could ruin the running back's career. On July 24, the NFL announced it would suspend Rice for just two games, setting off early waves of criticism. King's story is important because it informed the subsequent chorus of columns and punditry that slammed Goodell for not talking to the couple separately. The popular sports blogDeadspin quoted two domestic violence victim advocates -- Rene Renick, vice president of programs and emerging issues with the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and attorney adviser Viktoria Kristiansson of prosecutor resource group AEquitas -- who said Goodell's combined meeting with the couple was inappropriate. ""Even having the two of them in the room and thinking that she can speak freely in that kind of a situation is crazy,"" Renick told Deadspin. ""There is no way she can speak freely. And if there was any chance that she was afraid or coerced, she couldn't have said that. She would have been probably in a whole lot of danger."" A columnist for the Ravens' hometown paper, the Baltimore Sun's Dan Rodricks, interviewed a local social worker and counseling professor who echoed that point. And Wise, too, wrote a July 29 column that went into more detail about Goodell's meeting with the couple than Wise discussed on CNN. In an interview with PunditFact, Wise said the meeting was ""ethically irresponsible"" and shows Goodell's background lacks professional mental health training. ""I have no qualms whatsoever about maintaining that law enforcement agencies and domestic violence advocates on the whole support not interviewing a perpetrator and the abused together, especially when deciding matters of discipline for the perpetrator,"" Wise said. Law enforcement policies Ruth M. Glenn, interim executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, confirmed to PunditFact what other domestic violence advocates told other news organizations: Goodell should not have talked to Janay Rice in front of her husband. ""When that incident is being reviewed, investigated, whatever it is, there should never be an opportunity where that inquiry occurs when they're both present,"" Glenn said. ""Absolutely, it doesn't make it any different if it had happened a day before."" Glenn said the domestic violence prevention community has pushed for years for law enforcement agencies to adopt policies that call for interviewing victims and suspects separately (example of model policies and checklists here.) We found plenty of examples oflaw enforcement agencies thatexpressly say to separate the victim, suspect and witnesses involved in the dispute, including Santa Clara County (Calif.), Kentucky, Michigan, South Carolina and New Jersey. (We didn't have time to check each district or state by our deadline, and the U.S. Department of Justice did not offer a comment, but we are comfortable saying this policy is widespread.) Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg noted that detectives always question witnesses separately. Still, while separation may be required in the immediate aftermath of an incident, it isn't always maintained throughout the legal process, said said Charles H. Rose III, Stetson University College of Law professor. Sometimes couples in domestic violence cases are interviewed together so officials can judge how they act with one another. ""By the time Goodell was involved it was no longer necessary to have them be interviewed apart,"" Rose said. ""In effect, the wagons had already been circled."" Also left unsaid by Wise: Goodell was not initiating a law enforcement investigation. That already had occurred. ""You cannot apply a law enforcement paradigm to an employment issue,"" Rose said. ""Different standards, different law, and different results."" Goodell's goal for talking with Ray and Janay Rice may not have been analogous with a law enforcement investigation, cautioned James Acker, a University at Albany-SUNY School ofCriminal Justice professor. ""If it was, then for the same reasons, such a joint discussion would not likely be appropriate,"" Acker said. ""On the other hand, for all I know, the context was quite different. Perhaps Goodell already had received a factual account elsewhere; perhaps he wanted to attempt to gauge the Rices' relationship and try to form an impression of them together."" Our ruling Wise has a problem with Goodell meeting with Ray and Janay Rice together as Goodell sought information about the February elevator incident and aftermath that would inform Rice's discipline by the league. First, there's little debate that the meeting occurred, as it has been widely reported and not challenged by the NFL. Second, Wise also claimed that ""in every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency"" a meeting like that would be ""a no-no."" That's for the most part correct as well, though experts we spoke to questioned whether it's the right parallel to draw. Questioning victims separately from suspects in domestic violence cases does appear to be a widespread practice both encouraged by domestic violence advocates and many police and state policies after an incident occurs. But Goodell was not conducting a criminal investigation -- that already had occurred, and he had access to that information. Also, there are occasions when couples involved in domestic violence cases are interviewed together later, allowing police and prosecutors to judge how they act with one another so they can assess credibility and potential prosecution, one expert told us. Setting aside whether the comparison is apt, Wise's claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: "Mike Wise Says NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell interviewed domestic abuse victim Janay Rice with Ray Rice present and for ""every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency, that's a no-no."
Wise has a problem with Goodell meeting with Ray and Janay Rice together as Goodell sought information about the February elevator incident and aftermath that would inform Rice's discipline by the league. First, there's little debate that the meeting occurred, as it has been widely reported and not challenged by the NFL. Second, Wise also claimed that "in every domestic violence agency, every law enforcement agency" a meeting like that would be "a no-no." That's for the most part correct as well, though experts we spoke to questioned whether it's the right parallel to draw. Questioning victims separately from suspects in domestic violence cases does appear to be a widespread practice both encouraged by domestic violence advocates and many police and state policies after an incident occurs. But Goodell was not conducting a criminal investigation -- that already had occurred, and he had access to that information. Also, there are occasions when couples involved in domestic violence cases are interviewed together later, allowing police and prosecutors to judge how they act with one another so they can assess credibility and potential prosecution, one expert told us. Setting aside whether the comparison is apt, Wise's claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.