Teacher:Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: The story did not talk about the cost of adding a daily dose of ginger to one's diet. But since that cost can't be very significant, we'll rate this Not Applicable. The story did a good job of sharing the limited results of the rodent study. Mice sneezed less (2.1 rather than 15.2 times) in the group that swallowed ginger, and had lower levels of immunoglobulin E, after exposure to an allergen. It was good to see that story used absolute numbers to quantify the benefits rather than stating the results as a percentage decrease. It seems that harms to the mice were not discussed in the research paper (not surprising as the mice were all killed as part of the study) that's the basis for the story. A brief search didn't turn up anything overly concerning regarding the harms of ginger, but then again, it's not clear what the dosage given to the mice would translate to in human terms. A high-enough dose of anything can be dangerous. But while it might have been helpful to mention harms to humans attributed to powdered ginger, this may also have propagated the questionable notion that the findings are applicable to humans. We'll rate this Not Applicable. To its credit, the story explains high up that the study involved mice, and it includes a closing caveat that ginger has not been tested in humans. But while many people will likely understand that the results have limited application to humans, other readers may not appreciate just how tenuous the link is between animal and human research. (Here's some background on that issue if you care to read more.) The story falls short of warning that rodent studies frequently do not correlate well with human health. We'll rule this close call in favor of the story and rate it Satisfactory. There was no disease mongering. The story does not quote any sources, either independent or connected to the scientific paper. We realize that space and length limitations may make it difficult to include such sources in a brief story such as this one. Nevertheless, we wanted to hear more context for this study. Ginger has already been studied for relationships to cardiovascular disease and cancer. A comment from someone in nutritional biochemistry, or an allergist, might have helped readers take better stock of the findings. The story does not talk about existing ways to reduce symptoms of allergies. One could argue that such discussion would be propagating the idea the study might apply to humans not necessarily a good thing. But then again, the whole underlying point of the story is that there's some relevance here to people. On balance, we'd rather see the story include this information, which might be more useful for readers than the sneezing rates of mice anyway. The story mentioned that the study used powdered ginger, which it notes is used in cooking. People can deduce from this that powdered ginger is widely available. As the story says, ginger has never been given to human patients for allergic rhinitis. We couldn't find any news release related to this study. And since the story doesn't include any independent perspective which would indicate that it went beyond any such news release we can't be sure whether the story meets our standard here or not. We'll rate it Not Applicable.
Student:
Powdered Ginger May Ease Seasonal Allergy Symptoms