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: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don't cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO's speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it's easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman's lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman's decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this testunlike Decode's chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company's product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman's risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women's risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers

Output: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman's risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO's speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it's easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Major U.S. indexes fell about 2 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped as much as 563 points. On the benchmark S&P 500 index, health care and technology companies absorbed the worst losses. Johnson & Johnson plunged by the most in 16 years after Reuters reported that the company has known since the 1970s that its talc Baby Powder sometimes contained carcinogenic asbestos. The company denied the report. China said industrial output and retail sales both slowed in November. That could be another sign that China's trade dispute with the U.S. and tighter lending conditions are chilling its economy, which is the second-largest in the world. Meanwhile, purchasing managers in Europe signaled that economic growth was slipping. Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist for Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said investors are concerned that weakness will make it way to the U.S. They're wondering if the U.S. economy is likely to run out of steam sooner than they had thought. "Market consensus has been that the next recession is probably in 2020 or beyond," he said. Now, he said, the market is "really testing that assumption and trying to figure out whether it's sooner." Rising interest rates and tighter credit conditions are adding to investors' nervousness because they both tend to slow down economic growth. This week the European Central Bank said it is ending a bond-buying program that has pumped trillions into Europe's economy. The Federal Reserve is expected to increase U.S. rates again on Wednesday, as it's been doing for the last three years. It may also shed light on whether it plans to raise rates further in 2019. For more than 20 years, China has been one of the biggest contributors to growth in the global economy, and when investors see signs the Chinese economy is weakening, they expect it will affect other countries like the U.S. that sell things to China. In Europe, the index of purchase managers fell in France, which is racked by protests, to a level that points toward economic contraction. Germany's reading still pointed to growth, but it fell to its lowest level in four years. Those reports canceled out some potential good news on trade: the Chinese government announced a 90-day suspension of tariff increases on U.S. cars, trucks and auto imports. It's part of a cease-fire that China and the U.S. announced earlier this month to give them time to work on other issues. December is typically the best month of the year for stocks as a "Santa Claus rally" often adds to the year's gains. With 10 trading days left this month, however, the S&P 500 is down 5.8 percent. That followed a small gain in November and a steep 6.9 percent drop in October. The S&P 500 index lost 50.59 points, or 1.9 percent, to 2,599.95, its lowest close since April 2. The Dow retreated 496.87 points, or 2 percent, to 24,100.51. The Dow has fallen 10 percent from its record high in early October, reaching a mark known on Wall Street as a "correction." The other major U.S. indexes were already in "corrections." The Nasdaq composite slid 159.67 points, or 2.3 percent, to 6,910.66. The Russell 2000 index of smaller-company stocks fell 21.89 points, or 1.5 percent, to 1,410.81. Johnson & Johnson dropped 10 percent to $133 in very heavy trading. Its market value fell by $40 billion. Reuters reported that court documents and test results show Johnson & Johnson has known for decades that its raw talc and finished Baby Powder sometimes contained asbestos, but that the company didn't inform regulators or the public. The company called the story "false and inflammatory." In July the company lost a lawsuit from plaintiffs who argued that its products were linked to cases of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. A St. Louis jury awarded plaintiffs $4.7 billion. Johnson & Johnson faces thousands of other lawsuits. Among technology companies, Apple dipped 3.2 percent to $165.48. Adobe skidded 7.3 percent to $230 after its fourth-quarter profit disappointed investors and it also forecast lower-than-expected earnings in the current fiscal year. Industrial companies sank as well. Boeing lost 2.1 percent to $318.75. Oil prices again turned lower, as a slower global economy would weaken demand for oil and other fuels. Benchmark U.S. crude fell 2.6 percent to $51.20 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, used to price international oils, dropped 1.9 percent to settle at $60.28 a barrel in London. European Union leaders rejected British Prime Minister Theresa May's request to make changes to their deal covering Britain's departure from the EU on March 29. British legislators aren't satisfied with the terms May negotiated, and she canceled a scheduled vote earlier this week because it was clear Parliament wouldn't approve it. Britain's economy and financial markets across Europe face severe disruption without an agreement. In other trading: European bond prices rose and yields fell. Both the British pound and the euro weakened. The pound slipped to $1.2579 from $1.2660 and the euro fell to $1.1303 from $1.1367. Germany's DAX declined 0.5 percent and the CAC 40 in France declined 0.8 percent. Britain's FTSE 100 fell 0.5 percent. Japan's Nikkei 225 index slid 2 percent and the Kospi in South Korea lost 1.3 percent. Hong Kong's Hang Seng was down 1.6 percent. Bond prices edged higher. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.89 percent 2.90 percent. In other commodities trading, wholesale gasoline lost 3 percent to $1.43 a gallon. Heating oil fell 1.7 percent to $1.85 a gallon and natural gas dropped 7.2 percent to $3.83 per 1,000 cubic feet. Gold fell 0.5 percent to $1,241.40 an ounce. Silver dipped 1.5 percent to $14.64 an ounce. Copper was little changed at $2.77 a pound. The dollar fell to 113.29 yen from 113.60 yen. ____ Associated Press Writer Josh Boak contributed to this report from Washington. ___ AP Markets Writer Marley Jay can be reached at http://twitter.com/MarleyJayAP Claim: Stocks plunge to 8-month lows on growth fears; J&J nosedives.

Output: Stocks staggered to eight-month lows Friday after weak economic data from China and Europe set off more worries about the global economy. Mounting tensions in Europe over Britain's impending departure from the European Union also darkened traders' moods.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Highly anticipated data for a Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD.O) experimental antiviral drug are expected later this month. Analysts are also awaiting results in the near-term for products already approved for other conditions from companies such as Roche Holding (ROG.S) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (REGN.O). While experts estimate an approved vaccine could be at least a year away, progress toward treatments that benefit some COVID-19 patients could help investors gauge when the epidemic could come under control and some economic activity might resume. "The more we see positive clinical data, the more investors will be comforted in the fact that this is a transitory issue like all epidemics are," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at National Securities. Early signs of a slowdown in hospitalizations and intensive care needs in coronavirus hotspots in the United States and abroad have fed a stock market turnaround sparked by massive support from the Federal Reserve and a more than $2 trillion government bailout. As of Monday, the S&P 500 .SPX was off about 21% from its Feb. 19 all-time high but had rebounded 19% since March 23. "With each incremental piece of good news, that gets us closer to the end of the epidemic and the economic damage that falls in its wake," Hogan said. New York is nearing a plateau in the number of coronavirus patients hospitalized, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Tuesday, even though the number of the deaths in the state hit a single-day high. Governments around the world have locked down their communities - urging citizens to stay inside and ordering restaurants, stores and other businesses shuttered - to contain the spread of COVID-19 cases, which have exceeded 1.4 million globally with over 80,000 deaths, according to a Johns Hopkins tally. Drugmakers are studying ways to combat the respiratory illness, for which there are no approved treatments, as hospitals face strains from the flood of patients. More than 330 clinical studies related to COVID-19 are listed in clinicaltrials.gov, a database maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, including many seeking to test drugs already approved for other conditions. Gilead's remdesivir, which is administered intravenously, is one experimental treatment that has captured investors' attention. The biotechnology company's chief executive on March 28 said initial data would arrive in the ""coming weeks"" here and analysts said data could come in mid April. Remdesivir previously failed as a treatment for the Ebola virus. But it helped prevent disease and reduce severity of symptoms in monkeys infected with a virus more closely related to the new coronavirus in a study, raising hopes. Some analysts are cautioning against expecting that remdesivir will show an overwhelming benefit. Initial data are expected to come from studies of patients with relatively severe COVID-19. Because antivirals work best when patients are healthier, those results may show limited effectiveness, said Evan Seigerman, a biotech analyst at Credit Suisse. Even if remdesivir proves effective, the amount of the drug that would be available remains a concern. Gilead said last weekend here its existing supply could equate to more than 140,000 courses of treatment. Data is also anticipated for Regeneron (REGN.O) and Sanofi's (SASY.PA) Kevzara, perhaps by the end of the month, and for Roche's (ROG.S) Actemra - two similar rheumatoid arthritis drugs being tested for COVID-19 illness. Studies are also ongoing for hydroxychloroquine, a decades-old malaria drug that has been used by doctors for COVID-19 despite controversy over its effectiveness. "Just knowing that something works means investors can start thinking about the other side of this," said Keith Lerner, chief market strategist at Truist/SunTrust Advisory Services, in emailed comments to Reuters, "both from a human side and an economic and market perspective."" Claim: Investors await data on coronavirus drugs as market rally builds.
Output: Clinical data on potential treatments for the new coronavirus could help sustain a market bounce that has buoyed stocks after last month's plunge, as investors look for signs that authorities may be able to stabilize the pandemic.