TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The story quotes one price estimate of about $250 for the testing. We would have liked more detail about whether new details on accuracy of the tests might change their status in the marketplace, or whether insurability status might change. Parents who fear their child may inherit gender-linked disorders, such as hemophilia, could use this test earlier in pregnancy and possibly avoid more invasive procedures, such as amniocentesis. Amniocentesis carries a risk of miscarriage. We would have liked some numbers about how many women in the US are facing this dilemma; the situations that carry benefit are few. The average gestational "age" at enrollment in prenatal care in the US is after the window in which most of these tests are marketed. So that means if a couple did not know that they needed to think about X-linked mental retardation "fragile X" (which affect males) or hemophilia, the use of the test would not really be integrated into their care. Could have been more skeptical of why they are really being marketed closer to entertainment ultrasounds than medical care. Yes, the story lists potential harms. These range from inaccuracy, because the tests are unregulated and the laboratories don't have to meet medical standards, to the potential for abortions based on fetal gender. This story does not evaluate the quality of the evidence in the new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which prompted the headlines. We applaud some of the details, giving consumers information about the lawsuit about one consumer product, but the discussion leaves readers confused about how to evaluate reliability. We're surprised that the story didn't point out in absolute terms that 5 of every 100 tests of girls and 1 of every 100 boys will be wrong 6 out of a hundred multiplied by millions of pregnancies a year! That's a lot of errors even if uptake is minimal. This story balances the potential for danger in giving parents early information about the sex of a fetus and the genuine benefit for some in avoiding more invasive testing when a condition is ruled out by knowing the gender information. The story quoted four sources, in addition to the study's lead author. The story explains how parents who fear a sex-linked genetic problem for their fetus must balance risk against benefit in existing alternatives.It did not do a very detailed job of comparing how the new approach could compare, especially considering there is a risk of inaccurate results in the new approach. The hypothetical target group for these tests is much, much smaller than the broader use is and might become. It did do a better job than the Reuters story in describing other tests (urine tests) that have been developed. Yes, the story explains there are a variety of tests that have been widely available to consumers. But the story could have done a better job of connecting the dots for readers. Exactly how does one get a blood test done for a home test kit? Raises questions like: do I go to a lab? Finger stick? Are their costs other than the test? Shipping? Do I do this at home myself? Working with my medical care team? How soon do I get the results?, etc. Process of using several common kits could have been better described. The new research was on testing that is not novel, but by surveying 57 other studies, they reached a new conclusion about overall accuracy and how early in pregnancy it could predict gender. The story did not rely on a release. Claim: Test Can Tell Fetal Sex at 7 Weeks, Study Says

SOLUTION: The story outlines how new research about an existing family of consumer blood tests shows accuracy at seven weeks into pregnancy for determining the sex of a fetus. What the story also tells is the complicated weighing of risks and benefits that parents may need to use, since the consumer tests and their laboratories are not regulated by the FDA. We would have liked more information in here about which precise forms of testing among the 57 studies analyzed were most reliable and the quality of the evidence in the Journal of the American Medical Association survey. Earlier sex-determination in pregnancy could lead to parents choosing (or trying to choose) the gender they prefer. Internationally, it is already clear that some parents in China and India are deliberately choosing male babies, and aborting female fetuses. The research reported on, a survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association, does not directly address these larger ethical implications. But the study's lead author, Diana Bianchi, does stress that she wants to examine "why people are buying these things" and the consequences of consumer access to over-the-counter testing for fetal gender. The New York Times story goes a bit further than the competing Reuters story in exploring how consumers may use the testing.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Amid ongoing protests in Ferguson, Mo., the national conversation about racial justice and police force has ignored a critical point that needs to be discussed, said Fox News pundit Juan Williams Civil rights activists and black leaders have failed to address the very thing that's fueling conservative, white backlash the high crime rate among the black community, particularly among young black men, Williams said on Aug. 24th's Fox News Sunday. ""I think there's fear of intimidation, harassment being legitimized by the fact that there is a high rate of crime, especially among young black men,"" Williams said. ""No. 1 cause of death, young black men 15 to 34 murder. Who's committing the murder? Not police. Other black men."" Last year, PolitiFact found that 93 percent of murder victims were killed by someone who shares their race. This time, we want to check out Williams' claim that homicide is the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old. Unnatural causes We looked at numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which lists the leading causes of death across all demographics. Experts said that CDC data, compiled from coroner reports, are in line with FBI numbers, sourced from police reports. The CDC does not distinguish between the types of homicide (criminal, justified, etc.) or the types of accidents (auto accidents, falls, firearm discharge, etc.). The numbers for 2011, the most recent CDC findings, are consistent with data from previous years. According to the CDC, homicide was indeed the No. 1 killer of black men between the ages of 15 and 34 in 2011. Accidents ranked second in causes of death, and suicide claimed the third amount of black male lives between 15 and 24 years old, while heart disease ranked third for men 24-34. Leading causes of death among black males 1st 2nd 3rd All ages Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Accidents 1-4 Accidents Homicide Congenital malformations 5-14 Accidents Malignant neoplasms Homicide 15-24 Homicide Accidents Suicide 25-34 Homicide Accidents Diseases of the heart 35-44 Diseases of the heart Accidents Homicide 45-54 Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Accidents 55-84 Malignant neoplasms Diseases of the heart Cerebrovascular diseases 84-older Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Cerebrovascular diseases Source: CDC Comparedto other ethnicities, the numbers really stand out. Forty percent of African-American males15-34 who died were murdered, according to the CDC, compared to just 3.8 percent of white maleswho died. Overall, 14 percent of all men 15-34 who died in 2011 were murdered. In 2011, black males 15-34 were 10 times more likely to die of murder than whites of the same age group. Sources: CDC, PunditFact calculations For men of all ages, homicide was ranked fifth in leading causes of deaths for blacks (4.6 percent), seventh for Hispanics (2.8 percent), and ninth for American Indians (2.3 percent). Homicide was not one of the top 15 causes of death for whites 15-34. Color lines Why are so many young black males dying from homicide? As the laws of aging go, younger men are less prone to fall victim to natural causes of death, so they are more likely to die of unnatural causes. And the racial disparity between those causes has partially to do with the likelihood of getting into car-related accidents, said James Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University. ""Suburban whites drive more than urban blacks, and putting in more miles on highways that's important because not a lot of people are going to get killed in fender benders in neighborhood streets,"" Fox said. ""There are relatively few auto-accidents in black urban areas."" Beyond driving habits, the criminal homicide rate among young black males is significantly higher than other groups. This, experts agreed, has to do with poverty and geography. The difference in social structures, access to jobs, educational opportunities, and many other factors between impoverished black neighborhoods and others is often a matter of life and death, according to Eli Silverman, professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. ""The (homicide) numbers highlight the condition in minority areas, where a lot of violence occurs and the whole way of life is further intensified because police surveillance is always trying to track down people,"" he said. ""People have heightened survival instincts, will do anything to survive, and they'll seek retribution for anything...because they don't trust law enforcement."" Though it is tempting to pinpoint one cause as more impactful than others, Silverman cautions against singling out poverty or drugs or any other factor as the cause, because all of them intermix and interact. Our ruling Williams said that the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old is murder. CDC data supports the claim. Out of all causes of death, homicide claimed about 40 percent of black lives between 15 and 34 years. This was significantly higher than the national average for males of that age group, and all other racial groups." Claim: The No. 1 cause of death for African-American males15-34 is murder.

SOLUTION: Williams said that the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old is murder. CDC data supports the claim. Out of all causes of death, homicide claimed about 40 percent of black lives between 15 and 34 years. This was significantly higher than the national average for males of that age group, and all other racial groups.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "In a video denouncing the Senate health care bill's slashing of Medicaid funding, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., emphasized the importance of Medicaid in battling the opioid crisis. Warren called an additional $45 billion introduced in the new Senate health care bill to fight the opioid crisis insufficient if spending on Medicaid is to decrease. ""Right now, Medicaid is the principal way we deal with opioid abuse,"" Warren said. ""One in three people who's receiving treatment for drug problems gets some help from Medicaid to pay for that."" A reader asked us to check out her claim. Are one in three people receiving treatment for drug problems on Medicaid? When we asked her office to clarify her statement, they said Warren referred specifically to opioid users, rather than all of those who suffer from drug problems. Warren was referencing a study by Richard Frank, a professor of Health Economics in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School who testified before the Senate's Joint Economic Committee. Frank calculated the percentage of the non-elderly adult population with opioid use disorder covered by Medicaid, which came to 34.3 percent. He used data from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the latest study from the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Thirty-four percent effectively comes to 1.029, or one, person for every three. Warren said those people are receiving treatment, but Frank's research looked at people suffering from opioid use disorder whether or not they are currently in treatment. But otherresearch supports her point. When the Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers for us, they found that of the 880,000 nonelderly adults with opioid addiction who received treatment for opioid use disorder in 2015, 39 percent were covered by Medicaid. They looked at the same information as Frank. When we extended the population size to include people of all ages, the number was similar: 38 percent. Breaking down these numbers further, 51 percent of the 880,000 treated adults got outpatient treatment only (which refers to visits that don't warrant an overnight stay), 6 percent got inpatient treatment only, and 43 percent got both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Julia Zur, a senior policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, explained that outpatient treatment is more popular and that patients who start in inpatient treatment will often go on to receive outpatient treatment. When we asked why the number of those who are receiving treatment and covered by Medicaid is higher than those who are simply covered, Frank explained that Medicaid programs tend to be more generous in covering costs than private programs, and Medicaid plans cover at least some medication-assisted treatment to treat substance use disorders. The Medicaid expansion was particularly helpful in securing coverage, as it reached high-need segments of the low-income population in states that have been hard hit by the opioid crisis. Warren said that one in three people receiving treatment for opioid addiction were covered by Medicaid, basing her estimate on 34 percent of people with opioid use disorder. The number was higher when we looked at only those receiving treatment: 39 percent. So while the numbers differ slightly, one in three is still a fair estimate." Claim: One in three people who's receiving treatment for (opioid) drug problems gets some help from Medicaid to pay for that.

SOLUTION:
Warren said that one in three people receiving treatment for opioid addiction were covered by Medicaid, basing her estimate on 34 percent of people with opioid use disorder. The number was higher when we looked at only those receiving treatment: 39 percent. So while the numbers differ slightly, one in three is still a fair estimate.