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.

Q: Paragraph: The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. And these costs are substantial. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. On balance, this story does a fair job of describing the benefits of screening mammography as seen in this study. It reports the apparent 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths, while also pointing out that because relatively few women in the 50-69 age group die of breast cancer, that reduction can also be described as cutting the 10-year risk of death from 4.4 per 1,000 women to 4 per 1,000. The second statistic helps counteract popular assumptions about how many middle-aged women die from breast cancer. However, the framing of a story and who gets the last word sometimes overwhelms evidence-based explanations earlier in the story. That almost happened with this story, which gives the final word to an advocate of annual breast cancer screening for all women beginning by age 40, which is just the sort of blanket recommendation this latest study calls into question. The story includes a comment that because mammograms detect lumps that would not have become life-threatening, five to 15 women may be treated for every one whose life is saved by treatment. The story oversimplifies the methods used by researchers, saying they compared "women who were similar in most ways, except that one group received mammograms and the other didn't," without explaining that this was not a randomized trial where some women were assigned to screening and others weren't, but rather an observational study that looked at data on women during a 9-year period when Norway phased in mammography region by region. The story does alert readers to some of the limitations of the study: one, that a longer follow-up period might have shown more benefit to screening and, two, that the researchers had no information on whether any of the women received mammograms outside of the national screening program. It's a tossup for us to grade and, as we do in most such cases, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt. Claim: Mammogram benefits more modest than doctors thought

A: However, it does not explain to readers what is new or different about this study compared to earlier reports. Also, the final word in the story goes to an expert who touts benefits of mammography screening that clash with what was seen in this study. By comparing this story with, for example, the Philadelphia Inquirer and WebMD stories, you see how some of the gaps we've identified were addressed by competitors, giving readers a more complete and helpful story.
****
Q: Paragraph: Authorities are hoping large-scale manufacturers can use their low-cost supply chains and digital design expertise, including 3D printing, and repurpose some factories in order to make up the expected shortfall in vital medical hardware. Some of Britain's biggest aerospace and car companies have formed three teams to produce basic ventilators to help the country's National Health Service cope with the coronavirus outbreak. Meggitt Plc, which builds components including oxygen systems for civil aerospace and military fighter programs, is leading one consortium alongside engineers GKN, Thales SA and Renishaw Plc. The other two teams are being led by carmakers McLaren, which is looking at how to design a simple version of a ventilator, and Nissan Motor Co, which is working with others to support existing ventilator producers. Ventilators, machines which move air in and out of the lungs, could be the difference between life and death for coronavirus patients suffering breathing difficulties. But getting new production up to speed will not be easy, some in the manufacturing industry said. "Precision milling and 3D printing techniques could help manufacture complex parts," said Rene-Christopher Wollmann, program and platform director at Automobili Pininfarina, which uses virtual design software to build electric hypercars. "But this depends on how much know-how existing manufacturers (of ventilators) are prepared to share about the design of such a machine," he added. "Another bottleneck will be assembling such machines under conditions which are adequate for the medical industry." The idea of using automakers to supply medical equipment got started in China, where electric car maker BYD earlier this month began turning out 5 million face masks and 300,000 bottles of hand sanitizer a day. The Shenzhen-based automaker is backed by U.S. investor Warren Buffett. Since then the idea has spread to other industries and countries. European aerospace group Airbus is working across its processes to see if its 3D printing or production facilities can be of use. "The aim is for there to be a (ventilator) prototype in two weeks and for manufacturing to start in four weeks," one person familiar with the situation at the company said. In northern Italy, the epicenter of the virus outbreak outside China, Italian carmakers Ferrari and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV are in talks with the nation's biggest ventilator manufacturer to help it boost production, company officials said on Thursday. The Italian government has embarked on a big expansion of intensive care beds, many of which will require ventilators. A source familiar with the matter said sports car maker Ferrari NV would be ready to start manufacturing ventilator parts in its famous Maranello headquarters, close to a ventilator factory operated by small medical equipment maker Siare Engineering. The luxury carmaker had yet to make a final decision. "We're talking to Fiat Chrysler, with Ferrari and (component maker) Marelli to try to understand if they can lend us a hand in this process for the electronics part," Siare Engineering Chief Executive Gianluca Preziosa told Reuters. Siare could also benefit from the automakers' purchasing power, Preziosa said. A spokesman for Exor NV, parent firm of both Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari, said meetings had taken place on Thursday with Siare to study the feasibility of the idea and that a decision was expected shortly. The spokesman said two main options were being considered: help Siare to engineer a capacity increase at its plant with the support of technicians provided by Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari; or outsource production of ventilator parts to the carmakers' facilities. In the United States, the federal government is in talks with Detroit auto giants General Motors Co and Ford Motor Co about how they can help expand ventilator production, the companies and White House officials said on Wednesday. It would not be the first time Detroit retooled auto plants to confront a national crisis. During World War Two Ford, GM and the former Chrysler stopped building cars and directed their factories and engineers to mass-produce airplanes, tanks and other weaponry at unprecedented levels, earning Detroit the nickname the "Arsenal of Democracy." On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would invoke the Defense Production Act, a law dating back to the Korean War of the 1950s which grants the president broad authority to "expedite and expand the supply of resources from the U.S. industrial base," which could allow the government to speed production of masks, respirators, ventilators and other needed equipment. Ford CEO Jim Hackett told employees in a town hall meeting that Ford is working on building ventilators if the idea is feasible. GM CEO Mary Barra spoke to White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow about the issue after the company announced it would suspend North American production through March 30. Separately, Tesla CEO Elon Musk used his Twitter account to offer his company's services. "We will make ventilators if there is a shortage," Musk tweeted, responding to a suggestion that the billionaire repurpose a factory for the task. The comment immediately drew hundreds of replies urging him to act. Claim: World's governments draft manufacturers for virus treatment arsenal.

A: From Washington to London, Beijing to Rome, governments are drafting automakers and aerospace manufacturers to ramp up production of ventilators and other medical equipment to bolster what most experts say is an inadequate arsenal of coronavirus treatment tools.
****
Q: Paragraph: There's little need to discuss costs of a substance as well known as coffee. The story does a good job of describing groups for comparison: coffee-abstainers, light drinkers (1-6 cups per week), and heavier drinkers (>2 cups per day). However death rates were presented as relative risk. How many of the 18,000-plus subject died during the average 16 years they were followed? What does "18% less likely to have died" look like in absolute numbers? Coffee does have adverse effects, such as insomnia, increasing anxiety, and triggering reflux in certain people. However, the story made no mention of coffee's downsides. The story makes clear how large the study was, what the methodology was, and that other big risk factors for early death such as smoking were taken into account. Also, the story makes clear that no one is recommending coffee-drinking as a mode to prevent chronic diseases that lead to early death. And it includes a clear caution regarding the limitations of observational studies: "Though the two studies involved hundreds of thousands of people, they weren't designed to show that drinking more coffee caused people to live longer; that would require a randomized trial." And yet, it's important for journalists to avoid language that undercuts this important message. The headline, suggesting that coffee is "good for you" makes a clear cause-and-effect leap. And the use of a hedge like "might" in the following sentence isn't enough to offset the clear cause-and-effect implication i.e. that coffee is responsible for "extending" your life. "The best thing about your coffee habit might be that it extends your life by reducing your risk of death from heart disease, diabetes or even cancer." We'll rate this a very marginal Satisfactory with room for improvement. Coverage at the BBC, for example, was more successful at capturing the nuances of observational evidence, starting with the headline:"Coffee drinkers live longer perhaps." No fear-mongering here. The story includes perspective from an editorial that accompanied the studies in the journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine. And that's enough for a satisfactory grade. Reaching out to more sources, and actually talking to experts in this field, might have turned up additional insights worth sharing with readers. The story makes clear that the claims of benefit reduced mortality are not a reason to drink coffee. Instead the findings suggest there are no long-term effects that should scare coffee-drinkers away from their habit. In any case, the situation does not call for a comparison with alternative methods of living longer. We'll rate this Not Applicable. Coffee is so widely available that there's no need to make the point. The story makes clear how the National Cancer Institute study extends previous research on coffee's health effects from studies of mostly white European-descent subjects to a multi-ethnic population. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Two big studies bolster the claim that coffee even decaf is good for you

A:
This Los Angeles Times story was one of many news outlets to report on a pair of large epidemiological studies on coffee-drinking and mortality. And like many of those other stories, this piece seems to assume that coffee really is healthy, although that is not proven by these or any other observational (association) studies. We think the helpful notes of caution included in the story may get drowned out by the optimistic framing of the headline and lead paragraph. Describing coffee as "good for you" suggests to readers that coffee causes health benefits not something that these studies were designed to evaluate. We also explored the problems with news coverage about this study in a blog post. As the article states, "2.25 billion cups of coffee are consumed" each day around the world. Coffee is widely consumed and many people drink multiple cups per day. The potential health benefits and risks of coffee, like its consumption cousins wine and chocolate, seem to always be of interest to health news readers. And yet, like so many previous studies, these describe an association, not a causal effect. This particular article did not claim that coffee helps you live longer, but it also did not make crystal clear that the associations found in the studies do not really tell us much about whether coffee does anything at all with regard to chronic disease or mortality.
****