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: "During his widely watched monologue about his newborn son’s recent medical emergency, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel offered a bit of praise for one group of Americans that doesn’t receive much love these days: members of Congress. ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Is that what happened? Basically, yes. Kimmel has a point that by approving the increase, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress rebuked Trump’s proposal and made clear a distaste for cutting NIH. Budget experts, however, may quibble that Kimmel oversimplified a bit on the numbers. First, some background. NIH conducts and disseminates research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention and cure of human diseases. It is a collection of 27 separate institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Explaining Kimmel’s comment starts with the release earlier this year of the Trump White House’s budget blueprint. While this proposal did not offer significant detail, it did include a cut for NIH. Specifically, the proposal would reduce spending for fiscal year 2018 by $5.8 billion compared to the fiscal 2017 level, through a range of reorganizations, consolidations and other changes. That’s short of a $6 billion cut, as Kimmel described it, but it’s pretty close. Fast-forward a few weeks to congressional negotiations over a bill to keep the government funded and avoid a government shutdown. Under the agreement reached by lawmakers, NIH would see a $2 billion increase in its budget over the five-month period of extended federal spending. (That's on top of the funding that was already expected.) According to news reports, the agreement provides an additional $400 million for Alzheimer’s disease and an additional $476 million for the National Cancer Institute, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and an additional $110 million for the BRAIN Initiative, which aims to map the human brain. Where Kimmel oversimplified matters is on the numbers. Specifically, the $2 billion increase did not directly replace Trump’s $5.8 billion proposed cut -- the two actions are distinct, since they targeted two different fiscal years. It would have been more accurate to say that the $2 billion increase directly rejected a separate Trump proposal to cut $1.2 billion from NIH for the remainder of fiscal 2017, which concludes at the end of September. (Remember, the $5.8 billion cut was to be for the 2018 fiscal year, not for the rest of 2017.) Indeed, the Trump proposal to cut NIH by $5.8 billion in 2018 is still officially on the table since Congress hasn’t yet acted on spending for 2018. The agreement Kimmel cited only addresses a five-month extension of federal spending. That said, Kimmel’s overarching point -- that Congress effectively rejected Trump’s proposal to cut NIH -- is on target, experts say. Steve Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed that while Kimmel oversimplified the numbers, he added that the talk show host’s ""overall message is accurate. The administration sought cuts and Congress boosted the funding."" And the decision to protect NIH in the budget has been supported not just by Democrats but also by key Republicans, including the chairmen of the two chambers’ health appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ""There is no appetite on the Hill for cutting NIH,"" Stan Collender, a budget expert at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP, told PolitiFact. Our ruling Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up." Claim: President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion.

SOLUTION: "Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up."

PROBLEM: Paragraph: In 2004, a virulent form of canine influenza surfaced at greyhound racing parks in Florida. In that outbreak, it infected 24 greyhounds and killed 8 more. The contagion has since been confirmed in seven states, having killed greyhounds at tracks in Florida, Massachusetts, Arizona, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas and Iowa. It is highly contagious, spreading through shared items (like toys) or human contact (kennel workers have carried the virus home with them), in addition to dog-to-dog encounters. The virus that has been felling greyhounds is an H3N8 flu closely related to an equine flu strain. It is not related to typical human flus or to the H5N1 avian flu that killed about 100 people in Asia. Several states — including Florida, Minnesota, and Louisiana, among others — reported another rash of cases in late June 2017. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the outbreaks in those states were caused by a strain known as canine H3N2 influenza, which was first reported in Chicago in 2015. An AVMA spokesperson, Sharon Granskog, told us in a phone interview that such outbreaks can be seasonal in nature: There’s a time of year when more dogs are in contact with one another, they’re at dog parks, it’s highly contagious. We suggest that you make sure if your dog is going to a dog park that it’s healthy and talk to a veterinarian about whether or not a vaccine would be right for your dog. The disease was first reported in the U.S. in 2004 after several racing greyhounds in Florida contracted it. The AVMA said that they believed that the dogs became infected by a strain of H3N8 influenza, which is particular to horses. Dr. Ruben Donis, chief of molecular genetics for the influenza branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, confirmed that the flu jumped from horses to dogs, “a very rare event of considerable scientific interest” and added “at this point, there is no reason to panic.” How that jump occurred is either not known at this point or is not being commented on, so the email’s assertion that the eating of raw meat was to blame should be regarded as speculation rather than as fact. While there is always the possibility the virus might again jump species, this time to humans, this strain of flu has been present in horses for more than 40 years without any documented cases of humans catching it or the related canine flu. But there are vaccines available for both the equine and canine flus. Many readers have been confused (and unnecessarily frightened) by the difference between the terms “morbidity rate” and “mortality rate.” The morbidity rate describes the percentage of animals that will contract the disease after being exposed to the virus, but, despite its name, the term has nothing to do with the death rate associated with the flu. (Nearly 80 percent of dogs exposed to the canine flu virus will contract only a mild form of the disease which mimics kennel cough, a type of canine bronchitis that is rarely serious.) The mortality rate, which describes the percentage of animals that will die after contracting the disease, is in the much lower range of 5 to 8 percent, according to Dr. Cynda Crawford, the veterinary immunologist who first isolated the canine flu virus: The mortality rate is around 5 to 8 percent, says veterinarian Cynda Crawford at the University of Florida’s College of Veterinary Medicine in Gainesville. “I want to stress that despite the rumors that are out on the Internet and other such sources, this disease is not as deadly as people want to make it,” Crawford said. She says she receives more than 30 calls a day from concerned veterinarians. Dr. Crawford describes the contagion as producing in dogs “a moist, productive cough that ends in a gagging response, that will persist for one to four weeks, despite treatment with antibiotics or cough suppressants. Some dogs develop a thick, yellow discharge from the nose. A very few dogs will spike a high fever, between 105 to 107 degrees Fahrenheit. They become lethargic and weak, with rapid, shallow breathing. This is likely to progress to pneumonia.” Other veterinary experts have estimated the potential death rate as between 1 and 10 percent, with the higher percentage applying to very young, very old, or infirm dogs. Presence of the virus in dogs can be confirmed only through blood tests performed at the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Results of such blood screens take as long as two weeks. Dr. Crawford recommends keeping dogs showing symptoms of respiratory disease at home and away from other dogs for up to two weeks. The CDC, which is tracking the disease, issued no official recommendations. Because the symptoms of this as yet unnamed virus somewhat mimic bordetella, a less virulent illness commonly known as kennel cough, it is hard to ascertain how widespread the flu has become. On the flipside of that confusion, vets in various parts of the country have been thrown into a panic when encountering run-of-the-mill kennel cough in any of their clients, fearing they are instead confronting cases of the new flu. The Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell University inserted a caution against such hair-trigger diagnosis within a larger advisory about the potential for the flu to have spread to the state of New York: “One should not lose sight of the fact that all respiratory infections in dogs are not due to canine influenza virus. Adhering to the ‘band wagon’ approach could result in the failure to appropriately treat dogs with infections previously known to cause respiratory problems in dogs.” We found this good advice for vets and dog owners in our inbox one day: PLEASE DO NOT PANIC, and do NOT assume that every cough is Canine Influenza. Kennel Cough from parainfluenza and Bordetella is more common. However, the Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell is interested in receiving samples from dogs that appear to have kennel cough. Clinical Signs: Since this is a new pathogen in dogs, there is currently no natural immunity present in the unexposed canine population. Almost all exposed dogs will become infected, and nearly 80% have clinical signs. In the mild form the dogs will have a cough that persists for 10 to 21 days. The cough may be soft and moist or dry. Many dogs will have a nasal discharge from a secondary bacterial infection and low grade fever. The nasal discharge responds to broad spectrum antibiotics. In the severe form with pneumonia there is a high fever (104-106 F) and respiratory difficulties. X-rays may show consolidation. These dogs often have secondary bacterial infections and have responded to broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care including intravenous hydration. The incubation period is two to five days and dogs may shed virus for seven to 10 days. The disease can spread rapidly throughout a boarding kennel. Dogs that are coughing SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO SHOWS or Performance EVENTS. In a 1 June 2017 advisory to its members, the AVMA suggested that vaccines against the H3N2 virus strain “might be another prevention option” for dogs who were at least 8 weeks old and also recommended isolating dogs who could be infected, as well as not sharing toys between dogs and disinfecting shelter, veterinary, and boarding facilities. Claim: A virus deadly to dogs has been spreading in the canine population of the U.S.

SOLUTION: Has a virus deadly to dogs been spreading in the canine population of the U.S.?

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Those candidates include Lauren Underwood, a 31-year-old registered nurse from Illinois and part of the Democrats’ master plan to regain control of the House. While Underwood is no fan of President Donald Trump, she said her No. 1 concern — and the top concern of the voters she hopes to will send her to Washington — is access to health care. Attacking the Republican president hard just isn’t necessarily a winning play in Illinois’ 14th congressional district, said Underwood, who served as an adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services under Democratic President Barack Obama. “I don’t talk about him that much. He has a higher approval rating than my congressman does, so we talk about our congressman,” said Underwood, who’s hoping to oust incumbent Republican Rep. Randy Hultgren in a district that narrowly backed Trump two years ago. Other Democrats aiming to flip House seats say they’re also trying to zero in on policy more than the president. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has its hopes pinned on 50-plus candidates looking to upend enough seats — 23 — to wrest control of the chamber from the GOP for the first time in eight years. Republicans have their own plan to retain control, but Democrats are banking they have more than just both momentum and history on their side. U.S. Rep. Denny Heck is helping lead the effort to flip the House. The Washington Democrat said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee can assist candidates with a range of tasks — from tapping into a national donor base to aiding with the basic mechanics of building a campaign. But he warned that trash-talking Trump will get a candidate only so far. “What candidates ought to be doing is talking about that crowded freeway that they need to get additional funds to widen or additional funds to provide mass transit for, or that lake that is becoming polluted and they need the EPA to step up,” Heck said. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is also on the “Red to Blue” list. Mucarsel-Powell, who came from Ecuador as an immigrant with her mother, said Florida’s 26th Congressional District — the state’s southernmost district — is one of the most vulnerable for Republicans in the country. She pointed to a 16-point win by Hillary Clinton there in 2016. The seat is currently held by Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo. While Mucarsel-Powell doesn’t shy away from talking about Trump, she says she’s more focused on the struggles of local residents. “They don’t have access to health care. They don’t have good quality education,” she said, adding that tens of thousands depend on the Obama 2010 health care law that Republicans have worked to undo. Talk of a Democratic blue wave is overblown, according to Matt Gorman, communication director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. He said the committee — which has its own “Young Guns” program — is raising impressive sums and has battle-tested incumbents who know they’re going to be targets. Gorman said the NRCC is also urging candidates to run on local issues and not focus on the latest headlines on cable new or Twitter. He said polling shows the party is in better shape than many assume. “This is going to be a fight and certainly we’re going to work like we’re 10 points down as we do every day, but for the bedwetters out there who are claiming that all hope is loss I would encourage them to actually look at the data,” he said. “It’s simple math.” Democratic Rep. Katherine Clark, who is also heading up the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” initiative, said many candidates she’s been working with are more eager to dig into what’s on the minds of voters than taking swipes at Trump. “They’re not concerned with talking about Donald Trump as much as they are about talking about how people in their communities want their children to have job opportunities in the communities that they grew up in,” Clark said. While defeating Trump may galvanize the Democratic faithful, the party is still fumbling for a wider unifying message, according to Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor and former political media consultant. And Democrats may have trouble finding issues, local or not, for voters to latch onto in November. “The problem is that unemployment is low, economic confidence is relatively high, so to tell people you’ve never had it so bad when compared to eight years ago they’ve got it pretty good, that’s sort of also a tough road to hoe,” he said. “The Democrats may have history on the side. The question is A, will they blow it? And B, is Trump such an anomaly that history is being rewritten?” Roxane Pirayesh, a 32-year-old from Sacramento, California, who works for an education nonprofit, said in the end, the pitch from Democrats has to be more than just an anti-Trump drumbeat — and she’s not sure everyone’s gotten the message. “I think that’s probably the biggest flaw coming out of the Democratic Party,” she said. Claim: Democrats hoping to flip House not just trash-talking Trump.

SOLUTION:
Democrats hoping to flip enough seats to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives say they aren’t putting all their eggs in the anti-Trump basket.