text_1: Costly New Prostate Cancer Drug Works In Mysterious Ways
text_2: "The story had a primary focus of evaluating the evidence, raising some of the ""mysterious ways"" this drug works even in the headline. And saying ""It does work, sort of"" – in the third paragraph. But its strength is in how it educates readers about what confuses researchers about what they’ve seen, what it means, and how to explain it. Pithy quotes:  ""It’s not a home run…this is not going to cure prostate cancer."" Cutting to the core of the editorial writer’s issue: ""The way the study was done, he says, ‘does not allow one to conclude’ that Provenge is working because it mobilizes the immune system specifically against prostate cancer."" Writing that doesn’t beat around the bush:  ""Deep in the data is further mystery…Nobody yet knows just how to explain these results."" Put this one on a shelf and pull it down anytime you need proof that journalists can scrutinize evidence (and get a 5-star score from us) in less than 500 words. Show this to journalism students."