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 Boston Public Health Commission and Mayor Marty Walsh announced the two cases on Wednesday. Officials say both cases have been associated with daycare centers specializing in serving children experiencing homelessness. It is not known if the two cases are connected. The disease is highly infectious and can lead to meningitis, an infection of the brain and spinal cord. According to the commission, the disease is spread through saliva and requires close contact. Any people known to have been in close contact with the children have received antibiotics. The last day either child was at one of the centers was Friday. Claim: 2 cases of meningococcal disease detected in Boston.

A: Two young children in Boston have been diagnosed with meningococcal disease.
****
Q: Paragraph: There was no discussion of costs. The story included quantitive information about weight loss over time. It did not quantify the impact on blood pressure. The story mentioned specific side effects of this particular medication combination. To be most informative to readers, the story should have mentioned that the potential for long-term harm is not known. And the rate at which people stopped taking the drug due to side effects should have been included. While indicating that several studies had been conducted in more than 4,500 people with various characteristics, the story never mentioned whether the studies are considered definitive or not; it also did not mention that the results of these studies have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. And while reporting that weight loss appeared to be dose dependent, there was no discussion of how weight loss compared with those in control groups. Lastly as the focus of the story appeared to be on an effect on blood pressure, it would seem that the story should have included some detail about the magnitude of the change. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story mention that the study author and Dr. Aronne received funding from the manufacturer of this drug. It also included a quote from the president of the American Society of Hypertension who does not appear to have a financial tie to this product. There was no information about how well this product works in comparison with other approaches to weight loss. It's pretty clear from the story that the combination of the two drugs is not yet available. The story reported that the drug was a combination of two commercially available medications. It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Weight Loss Pill Also Lowers Blood Pressure

A: Although highlighting the effect of this product on blood pressure, the story did not explain how much blood pressure dropped. The story also didn't say how common the side effects are or how often people have to discontinue the medication due to side effects. It would have been helpful to remind readers of the possible pitfalls that may be ahead and that little is known about the long term use of this product in terms of both weight loss and potential risks that might result. Obesity and high blood pressure are very common conditions. There are few treatment for obesity that have been demonstrated to be enable people to lose weight and maintain that loss.
****
Q: Paragraph: No discussion of costs not of PSA testing nor of subsequent biopsies. These are big cost issues that warranted at least a line. The story states the 1 in 20 needing biopsy for total PSA vs. the 1 in 7 needing biopsy for PSA velocity. What the article doesn't quantify is whether there would be fewer false positive findings if PSA velocity was ignored. Better job than its HealthDay competition in actually quantifying the impact on reducing unnecessary biopsies. The story didn't do as good a a job as its HealthDay competition, which spelled out how men in the study were all from the placebo arm of a drug trial and which provided a bit more detail on the quality of the evidence. Neither story indicated that study subjects were highly selected normal prostate exam and PSA < 3 as entry criteria. This is important information that may influence how generalizable the findings may be. No disease mongering here. The story included quotes from two independent sources. The HealthDay competition addressed in a much more explcit manner the option of not having the PSA test at all, when it reported: "Current American Cancer Society prostate screening cancer guidelines recommend that men make an informed decision with their doctor about whether to be tested for prostate cancer. "Research has not yet proven that the potential benefits of testing outweigh the harms of testing and treatment," according to the ACS." The story stated that most men over 50 get PSA blood tests. The story made it clear that the study was to examine the value in a common practice of doing a biopsy in men with a normal PSA level but in whom an increase in PSA has been detected. Did not appear to rely on a sole news release. Claim: Study: PSA rise not good prostate cancer predictor

A:
It did a better job quantifying harms, but a weaker job in evaluating the evidence. It also never addressed the option of not having PSA tests at all. Neither story addressed costs a big issue given the evidence about unnecessary biopsies. This story focused on the study results, evaluating the value of tracking rising PSA levels. But it never dropped back to the big picture and never reminded men that NOT having a PSA test at all. The competing HealthDay story did, giving it a small but significant edge in completeness.
****