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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: George W. Bush stood with a bullhorn on a pile of rubble after the 9/11 attacks on lower Manhattan and promised that the people who were responsible “will hear all of us soon.” Barack Obama was in office for just a few months when the first reports came in about the H1N1 virus, which would eventually be declared a pandemic  like today’s new coronavirus. Most American presidents will confront a crisis — or crises — before they leave office, whether it is a natural disaster, war, economic downturn, public health threat or terrorism. What matters is how they respond, historians say. “The number one thing a president can do in a moment like this is try to calm the nation,” said Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. It’s what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during an extraordinary 12 years in office, guiding the nation through a bleak period of Depression-era unemployment, a severe Midwest drought known as the Dust Bowl and battle against the Nazis and Japanese in World War II. During the influenza of Wilson’s time, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide, including about 675,000 in America, presidents were not involved in public health issues in the same way that President Donald Trump has become engrossed in the U.S. effort against the new coronavirus. Such issues were left for public health professionals at the state and local level. “Wilson never issued any public statement whatsoever,” said John M. Barry, author of “The Great Influenza,” a book about the 1918 flu. “He was entirely focused on the war. Period.” In fact, Wilson was so focused on the post-war peace talks he was participating in in Paris that he, too, ended up stricken with the flu. He recovered. Trump, on the other hand, seems intent on being the public face of the effort against what has become his most serious challenge in this reelection year. Trump, who has no scientific or medical training, now leads a daily White House briefing on coronavirus efforts by a task force he tapped the vice president to lead. Trump styles himself as a “wartime president” fighting an “invisible enemy” responsible for hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections in the U.S. - numbers that will continue to rise as the virus spreads — and a dramatic upheaval of everyday life. Millions of people have been ordered or urged to stay home for the foreseeable future, cut off from simple pleasures like going to restaurants, shopping malls or movies in a bid to slow the virus. But Trump’s crisis management has earned mixed reviews, with praise from many supporters and criticism from detractors, including mayors and governors who are desperate for Trump to more robustly use his authority to help them get much-needed protective gear and supplies for doctors and nurses. The president’s early attempts to minimize the severity of the situation, and to suggest that it was under control, have been panned, though he recently adopted a more urgent tone. But the damage has been done, said Steve Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, citing lack of public trust due to Trump’s early handling of the situation. “Not having trust and confidence is a huge liability heading into something this catastrophic,” said Morrison, senior vice president and director of the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS. Obama was a few months into his first term in 2009 term when reports started coming in that April about the H1N1 flu. He addressed the situation that month, assembled a team and ultimately declared both a public health emergency and a national emergency to deal with the threat. “This is obviously a very serious situation, and every American should know that their entire government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations,” Obama said as he opened a White House news conference that month. He said public health officials had recommended that schools with confirmed cases consider temporarily closing, and that he had asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding to help monitor and track the virus, and to build a supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment. “Everyone should rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus,” Obama said. Dr. Howard Markel, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for the History of Medicine, said Obama was “very hands on” during H1N1 — but not as visibly as Trump. Obama’s director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention conducted daily briefings from Atlanta. “He took a step back because he allowed his experts to run the show,” Markel said of Obama. “He didn’t have to be in front of the podium, but you knew he was there.”  Nearly 12,500 deaths due to the H1N1 flu were reported in the U.S. between April 2009 and April 2010, when the World Health Organization declared an end to the pandemic. Obama spent nearly $1 billion and sent U.S. military personnel to West Africa to help with the response to an outbreak of Ebola  in 2014. Still feeling his way through his first year in office, Bush became a wartime president the instant hijackers recruited by the al-Qaida militant network flew commercial airliners with passengers into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001. Days later, Bush stood atop the rubble and memorably spoke for the nation. “I can hear you!” Bush blared through the bullhorn as emergency responders cheered. “The rest of the world hears you! And the people – and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”  Weeks after that appearance, Bush authorized military airstrikes against Taliban military installations and al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan continues to this day. ___ This story has been corrected to reflect that Morrison’s first name is Steve, not Scott. ___ Bev Banks contributed to this report. Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap ___ The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Presidents in health crises: Trump more hands-on than many .

Ex Output:
Woodrow Wilson was more focused on the end of World War I than a flu virus that was making its way around the globe, ultimately sickening hundreds of thousands of Americans, including the president himself.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Yet nothing prepared residents of its oldest town, Graaff-Reinet, for their worst drought in more than a century. As the dry spell entered its fourth year, tap water turned brown and smelled like rotting fish. When the water behind the Nqweba Dam dried up, depositing tens of thousands of dead fish onto cracked earth, queues began forming at municipal bore holes and farm animals died in their hundreds. The bleak choices facing millions of people in drought-stricken southern Africa - whether to flush toilets or not, or to keep animals alive or let them die - could soon be faced by other places on a warming planet with shrinking water supplies. “This area is dry but our taps have never been completely empty. Never,” said Bukelwa Booysen, who has had to send staff in search of borehole water for her school for disabled children, and send the kids home when they can’t find any. An abnormally hot summer with rainfall 75% below average, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has struck the whole region. The United Nations says 45 million people in southern Africa face hunger. Bushes and trees clinging to the Karoo’s rocky ravines are withered and grey - even hardy acacia thorns are dying. Signs mark rivers that are now dry beds. At one farm, Gerrie Snyman, 65, was feeding grain to sheep and goats that couldn’t find pasture. More than a third of his couple-thousand goats and sheep had either died or been sold this year. His 80 cows were now 15. He loaded a calf that was starving - its mother had stopped producing milk - onto his truck to take home and shoot. A friend had shot himself dead after his animals died of thirst. “We are grateful to the Almighty for our borehole water,” he said. “We don’t know what we’ll do when it runs out.”   When Cape Town’s reservoir nearly ran dry 18 months ago, it made international headlines and authorities rationed water. Yet Karoo is long past water rationing. For Valentia Esho, 45, an unemployed mother of seven in the township of Umazisakhe, it means letting her toilet fill up  instead of flushing, never washing clothes and only washing plates that stink. Water is just for drinking. “The house is really smelling,” she said, inside her one-room brick-and-tin home. “Everyone is paining from stomach aches and diarrhoea.”   In another township, Asherville, where wind kicked up dust devils, school headmaster Basil Vaaltyn was overseeing water distribution from a truck. He’d done everything to cut down on his usage: “I’m down to a minute showering instead of two.” His wife saves dirty dishwater to fill the cistern. A spokesman for the municipality said it was drilling boreholes, installing pipelines and building an 18-million-litre reservoir, adding: “Usage of water is still very high. The community is requested to use water sparingly.”  With municipal authorities overwhelmed, South African charity Gift of the Givers is trucking water to townships and drilling boreholes. Gideon Groenewald, a geohydrologist for the charity, uses science and spirituality to look for groundwater. When he was growing up on a farm, he used to dowse with wet twigs. Nowadays he prefers magnetic detectors. “I open Google maps and look for the lines of trees. I ask God in prayer which lines hold water, then I go down to that GPS location,” he said while a forked stick turned in his hand over an arid patch of shrubs. “You see the stick moving where the magnetic field is? There’s water here,” he continued. “It’s pure science.”  The charity has drilled 1,800 boreholes in the past three years, Groenewald said, only a third of them dry. But Louise Stafford, water director for the Nature Conservancy in South Africa, urged caution with boreholes, because groundwater is a finite resource. Water-intensive agriculture like citrus farms can make droughts worse, she said, and leaky pipes are losing a billion litres a year - problems Water Minister Lindiwe Sisulu pledged to tackle in a new water masterplan she delivered on Thursday. One Sunday, as clouds formed over Graaff-Reinet, its Assembly Church prayed. The clouds spat but didn’t pour. “We pray for God to open heaven and send rain,” Pastor Dolan Cochrane said. The congregation bowed. “Lord,” Cochrane continued. “We know that, in your time, you will come to our rescue.” Claim: South Africa's Karoo drills and prays as taps run dry.

Ex Output:
South Africa’s Karoo region has always been parched - it means land of thirst in the language of its earliest inhabitants, the Khoisan hunter gatherers.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The article does not include information about the psychological and financial costs of biopsies for women with a false positive diagnosis of breast cancer. Among women with a personal history of breast cancer, 1.7 % were referred for biopsies that determined there was no second breast cancer while 1% of the women without breast cancer had false positive determinations. The article does point out that 18% of women with a personal history of breast cancer were called back for additional imaging or biopsies compared with 8.3% of those without breast cancer but there is no discussion of the psychological or financial costs connected with the additional imaging. By quantifying the benefits of screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer in absolute numbers, the story presents this information accurately and in a useful, understandable way for women with breast cancer. The story discusses false positives & interval cancers & provides explanations of both of these problems associated with screening mammography. The story does not explain that the study was a retrospective study based on mammograms performed from 1996-2007 in five states at facilities affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. There is no mention in the story of the possible confounding factors such as the biological factors associated with treatment of the first cancers that were noted by the study authors. The story also fails to include information about the subgroups of women with the highest observed cancer rates for whom the study authors note that alternate screening might be considered. The headline of this story misleads the reader by stating that “Mammograms May Not Be Fool-Proof at Catching Second Cancers.”  No type of screening for breast cancer is fool-proof whether it is for an initial diagnosis or for a second breast cancer. Regarding the accuracy of screening mammography for an initial breast cancer diagnosis, the Komen for the Cure website states that in women age 50 and older “…between six and 27 percent of breast cancers may be missed by mammography alone.”  Mammography is most effective in women 50 and older. Quotes from two independent sources are included in the article. Dr. William Audeh, director of the Wasserman Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, presents possible explanations for some of the higher false positives among women with a personal history of breast cancer. Quotes from both Dr. Audeh and Dr. Robert Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society, point out that screening mammography may not have been as effective among women with a personal history of breast cancer as it was in those without a breast cancer diagnosis but that most of the cancers detected were stage I or ductal carcinoma in situ, a non-invasive breast cancer. The article could have noted that study authors declared no conflicts of interest and  that the study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Satisfactory mostly because of the inclusion of the comments by Dr Audeh about MRI, which is really the only acceptable alternative to mammography for followup of breast cancer survivors, and it is still unclear how MRI and mammography should be used in concert. Not applicable. Mammography is widely available and recommendations for annual mammography screening after a breast cancer diagnosis are standard. So the story didn’t need to specifically discuss the availability. Satisfactory. The novelty of mammography is not in question, and the whole point of the story was the new study about mammography’s performance in breast cancer survivors vs. controls. It may have been helpful for readers to know that the study was the first to examine the accuracy of screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer. The article does not rely solely on a news release. It includes several explanatory quotes from Dr. Diana Miglioretti, one of the co-authors of the study as well as quotes from two doctors not connected with the study. Claim: Mammograms May Not Be Fool-Proof at Catching Second Cancers

Ex Output:

Although the story addressed most of our criteria satisfactorily, it didn’t:  include information about the psychological and financial costs of biopsies for women with a false positive mention the possible confounding factors such as the biological factors associated with treatment of the first cancers that were noted by the study authors. Women already diagnosed with breast cancer are at risk of developing a second breast cancer. Breast cancer survivors would benefit from evidence of the accuracy of screening mammography in detecting second breast cancers. In addition, this evidence is useful in determining clinical practice guidelines. Because there are nearly two million breast cancer survivors, accuracy of screening affects many women. While over 40,000 women die each year of breast cancer, the majority of those diagnosed survive their disease.