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 Billings Gazette reported Wednesday that the Montana Human Rights Bureau ruled that Yellowstone County unlawfully denied “gender-affirming health care” to Eleanor Andersen Maloney in 2018. The newspaper reports Maloney was a county prosecutor when she was denied a health insurance request for possible elective surgery, although she was still on a waiting list at the time. The newspaper reports the county also sought the return of payments for Maloney’s therapist. Yellowstone County has 30 days to respond. The case will move to a formal hearing if an agreement is not reached. Calls by the newspaper to the county seeking comment Wednesday were not returned. ___ Information from: The Billings Gazette, http://www.billingsgazette.com Claim: Montana county faces transgender discrimination complaint.

Output: A Montana county may have discriminated against one of its own attorneys by denying the transgender woman access to health care.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Phusion Projects LLC, which is based in Chicago, agreed not to sell caffeinated alcoholic drinks, agreed not to promote binge drinking or other misuses of alcohol, and accepted marketing limits designed to keep people under 21 from buying alcoholic products. Among these limits are a ban on promoting flavored malt beverages on school or college property except at licensed retailers, and not using models or actors under age 25 or who appear to be under age 21 in its advertising. Phusion also agreed to pay $400,000 to the regulators as part of the settlement. The danger of mixing caffeine and alcohol was spotlighted in 2010 when some college students were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning after drinking alcoholic energy drinks. Phusion that year removed the caffeine and other stimulants from beverages, including Four Loko, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned the company and rivals that “blackout in a can” drinks combining alcohol and caffeine were unsafe. “Alcoholic energy drinks are dangerous - especially for the teenagers and young adults they target,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Today’s agreement ensures that one company will no longer market a dangerous product to youth.”  In the settlement, Phusion denied the regulators’ allegations and that it violated any laws, including state laws governing consumer protection and trade practices. “We consider this agreement a practical way to move forward and an opportunity to highlight our continued commitment to ensuring that our products are consumed safely and responsibly only by adults 21 and over,” President Jim Sloan said in a statement. “Phusion continues to believe, however, as do many people throughout the world, that the combination of alcohol and caffeine can be consumed safely and responsibly.” Claim: Maker of Four Loko flavored malt liquor accepts marketing limits.

Output: The maker of Four Loko has agreed with 20 U.S. state attorneys general and the city of San Francisco to a series of reforms to resolve allegations that it improperly marketed flavored malt beverages to young people and encouraged alcohol abuse.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "During a press conference on April 30, 2013, President Barack Obama addressed a number of high-profile issues, including the fighting in Syria, the Boston Marathon attack, immigration legislation and the across-the-board cuts to federal spending known as the sequester. On the sequester, Obama expressed his ambivalence about signing a bill that passed Congress a few days earlier. The bill, which would ease the sequester’s hit on the Federal Aviation Administration, moved quickly through the House and Senate amid public frustration. The flight delays stemmed from cuts to air traffic control staffing; the bill shifted $253 million from an airport improvement fund to the air traffic control system. Obama said the pressure on air travelers left him with little choice but to sign the bill, but he also decried the piecemeal approach to solving the nation’s budget and infrastructure challenges. If lawmakers were ""seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety,"" Obama said, ""then they shouldn't just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that. They should be thinking about what's going to be happening five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now. … How are we making sure that we're investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges, and investing in early childhood education?"" Obama added: ""There was a recent survey of the top airports … in the world, and there was not a single U.S. airport that came in the top 25. Not one U.S. airport was considered by the experts and consumers who use these airports to be in the top 25 in the world. I think Cincinnati airport came in around 30th. What does that say about our long-term competitiveness and future?"" We wondered whether this survey really showed U.S. airports to be such a dismal lot. As it turns out, Obama got the numbers right. He was referring to the World Airport Awards, an independent, annual survey of 12 million travelers that ranks nearly 400 airports. The survey has been conducted by a British-based firm called Skytrax since 1999. The top-ranked U.S. airport in the group’s 2013 survey was indeed Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in the 30th spot. The airports ranking higher than that include a dozen in Asia (including the top two, Singapore Changi Airport and Incheon International Airport), seven in Europe, three in Africa, two in Australia, and just one in North America (Vancouver International Airport, at No. 8). In all, 17 U.S. airports cracked the top 100, with Denver 36th, San Francisco 40th, Atlanta 48th and none of the rest ending up higher than 50th. The 2013 results were not a fluke: We checked the 2012 and 2011 surveys as well and found that the top U.S. airport in both years was also Cincinnati, ranking 24th. We checked with Angela Gittens, director general of Airports Council International, a trade group for airports, to see what she thought of the rankings. She began by expressing skepticism about the survey’s rigor. (The firm says it surveys passengers online and by phone and uses systems to detect fraudulent submissions.) She added that the U.S. faces some stiff challenges competing in a global comparison of this sort. ""Major international hubs in the U.S. are sometimes hampered by long immigration and security queues, which would hurt their rankings in comparison to an airport with primarily domestic service, such as Cincinnati,"" Gittens said. Cincinnati, which outperformed no fewer than 50 U.S. airports that have larger traffic, is hardly an international hub on the scale of New York’s JFK, Los Angeles or Miami. Peter Miller, a spokesman for Skytrax, agreed. He said the U.S. may be suffering in the survey because of the importance of security processing and immigration to many passengers -- ""not just actual waiting times, but also traveler treatment in these areas."" Gittens added that U.S. airports have a hard time competing with newer airports in Asia. In many countries, she said, ""the national governments see their airports as key assets for their economic vitality and strive to make the visitors’ journey through the airport as smooth as possible."" So the rankings Obama cited should be taken with a grain of salt. More important, the rankings don’t entirely support the president’s argument that the federal government needs to spend more money ""rebuilding our airports"" and providing for ""passenger convenience and safety."" Of the 39 factors that went into the survey’s rankings, we count only 13 that address airport capital improvements -- projects like terminal and waiting-area design, signage, public transit access, ease of navigation, and baggage-handling systems. Another five factors in the survey involve security. This leaves a slight majority of factors that concern amenities and hospitality -- factors such as choice of bars, shopping options, restaurant prices, entertainment facilities, washroom cleanliness, availability of luggage trolleys, and ""friendliness of airport staff."" ""The survey covers a wide cross-section of amenities and facilities at every airport, but it is true to say that one of the most prominent sections is the focus on service, staff, convenience, and waiting times,"" said Peter Miller, a spokesman for Skytrax. ""These are the issues that are of prime importance to travelers, and which cause the biggest distinction between airports worldwide."" Our ruling Obama said the United States needs to invest more in its airports over the long term in part because ""there was a recent survey of the top airports … in the world, and there was not a single U.S. airport that came in the top 25."" He is spot-on about the rankings, but the survey in question offers only imperfect support for the argument that the federal government should invest more in its airports, since the survey measures not just major infrastructure aspects of airports (which the federal government would help fund) but also passenger amenities (something the government would not get directly involved in)." Claim: "Long-term federal investment in U.S. airports is urgent because ""there was a recent survey of the top airports … in the world, and there was not a single U.S. airport that came in the top 25."


Output: "Obama said the United States needs to invest more in its airports over the long term in part because ""there was a recent survey of the top airports … in the world, and there was not a single U.S. airport that came in the top 25."" He is spot-on about the rankings, but the survey in question offers only imperfect support for the argument that the federal government should invest more in its airports, since the survey measures not just major infrastructure aspects of airports (which the federal government would help fund) but also passenger amenities (something the government would not get directly involved in)."