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: In April 2019, several news articles from around the world reported that the Australian government had a plan to cull millions of feral cats using poisoned sausages dropped by air. CBS News published an article with the headline “Australia is Trying to Kill Millions of Stray Cats by Airdropping Poisoned Sausages,” which went on to report that: “The Australian government wants to kill two million feral cats by next year — and it wants to do it by airdropping poisonous sausages. There are currently an estimated 2 to 6 million free-roaming cats across the country, and officials say they are threatening native wildlife populations.”  On 29 April, the UK Independent published an article with the headline “Australia Plans to Kill Millions of Feral Cats by Airdropping Sausages Laced With Poison” and on 26 April CNN reported that: “Australia is at war — with feral cats. By 2020, the government wants to kill two million free roaming cats, a large chunk of the total feral cat population, which is estimated to be between 2 and 6 million.” We received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of these reports, and in particular about the claim that the primary or exclusive culling method was to be sausages laced with poison. The Australian government has indeed begun an initiative aimed at culling millions of feral cats, which they have described as “one of the greatest threats to Australia’s land-based mammals” and blamed for driving some species into extinction. However, the culling project was first announced in 2015 and was already well underway when reports happened to emerge about it in April 2019. In 2015, Australia’s government launched the Threatened Species Strategy. One of its four key strategies related to feral cats, and the policy outlined a target of culling 2 million such cats by the year 2020 and eradicating feral cats entirely from five of Australia’s islands, among other goals. A government report launching the initiative stated that: “The scientific evidence is unequivocal that feral cats are one of the greatest threats to Australia’s land-based mammals. They have been a major contributor to the extinction of at least 27 mammals since they were first introduced to Australia. Today, they imperil at least 142 species or more than one third of our threatened mammals, reptiles, frogs and birds. As an extinction driver for so many of our native animals, and a threat that has been relatively neglected in the past, tackling the threat of feral cats is the highest priority of this Action Plan.” By the end of 2016, researchers from RMIT University in Melbourne reported that an estimated 211,000 feral cats had been culled as part of the initiative, but also estimated that 83 percent of those animals had been shot, rather than poisoned. More up-to-date figures were not included in the progress report relating to the period ending in December 2017. In order to achieve the goal of eradicating 2 million feral cats, the first action listed by the government was the “development and deployment of Curiosity, the new humane feral cat bait.” Australia’s Department of Environment and Energy had spent years developing and testing Curiosity, a new form of sausage bait that, according to the government, is less likely than existing baits to be consumed by other animals: The Curiosity bait for feral cats has been a long-term $5.1 million project to develop a humane, broad-scale toxic bait to control feral cats in conservation areas. The Curiosity bait for feral cats comprises a small meat-based sausage containing a small hard plastic pellet encapsulating a humane toxin. Cats do not have molar teeth and tend to chew their food less so they may swallow portions of the sausage including the pellet. Most Australian native animals nibble and chew their food and are likely to reject the pellet. The pellet is designed to dissolve in the cat’s stomach and deliver a rapid dose of the toxin. The Curiosity bait for feral cats uses a new humane toxin called para-aminopropiophenone, or PAPP, which is considered best-practice world-wide. In brief, the toxicant, PAPP, converts the animal’s red blood cells to a form that cannot carry oxygen, causing death through oxygen starvation to the brain and other vital organs. It is considered to be humane and death takes minutes to hours. The RSPCA [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] have indicated that PAPP is a clear improvement in humaneness over previous toxins. The mode of action means that secondary poisoning of any other animals from consuming a carcass of a cat that ate a Curiosity bait containing PAPP is much less likely than when using previously employed toxins. (Although the excerpt serves to explain the Australian government’s reasoning in favoring the Curiosity bait, it does contain a factual error: cats do have molar teeth, albeit only two, and they are used for tearing flesh rather than grinding, so the overall claim that cats tend to chew less and swallow more readily than other animals, appears to stand). In government-commissioned field trials of Curiosity, the bait has been distributed on the ground in target areas using both aircraft and ground vehicles. As of April 2019, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority was still assessing the PAPP variant of Curiosity. But the national government appeared confident it would be registered as a pest-control product, because in November 2018 the Department of the Environment and Energy solicited applications for a commercial partner to manufacture and sell the bait. Although no significant developments in relation to the culling program took place in the spring of 2019, interest in the initiative was revived by a 25 April article published by The New York Times, which bore the headline “Australia is Deadly Serious About Killing Millions of Cats,” and mentioned the existing use of another kind of sausage-borne cat bait containing the active ingredient sodium fluoroacetate, known as “1080.”  In February 2019, a group of Australian scientists questioned the basis of the government’s target of culling 2 million feral cats by 2020, in part saying the government had not given a clear metric or scientific rationale for that number; had failed to indicate how or whether the cull would lower the overall population of feral cats (given the rapid rates at which they reproduce) and also increase the populations of endangered species; and because estimates vary widely over how many feral cats actually live in Australia. In a paper published in the journal Conservation Letters, the researchers wrote: Claim: The Australian government's Threatened Species Strategy has as one of its aims the culling of 2 million feral cats by 2020, largely using a sausage bait carrying a lethal toxin. 

Ex Output:
“The focus on killing cats runs the risk of distracting attention away from other threats to biodiversity, most prominent of which is widespread, ongoing habitat loss, which has been largely overlooked in the Threatened Species Strategy. The culling target is a highly visible symbol of a broader campaign around feral cat research and management in Australia, rather than a direct indicator of conservation action and success. We are concerned that progress toward the 2 million target could be misinterpreted as progress toward conserving threatened species, when the link between the two is not clear.”


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The tentative settlement, which needs a judge’s approval, will provide compensation ranging from $2,500 up to $250,000 to women who say Dr. George Tyndall abused them between 1988 and 2016, USC Interim President Wanda Austin said in a statement . About 500 current and former students have now made accusations against Tyndall and filed various lawsuits. They contend he routinely made crude comments, took inappropriate photos, forced them to strip naked and groped them under the guise of medical treatment. Tyndall spent about three decades as a USC staff gynecologist before retiring last year after a university investigation concluded there was evidence that he sexually harassed students during exams. Tyndall has denied the allegations and has not been charged with a crime. Los Angeles police and Los Angeles County prosecutors are reviewing the claims. His attorney, Leonard Levine, said in a statement that Tyndall “continues to focus on the criminal investigation” and had no further comment. The proposed settlement applies to a pending federal class-action lawsuit that involves a fraction of the overall accusers but is open to every woman who ever had an appointment with the gynecologist. Three attorneys representing nearly 300 accusers say they’re strongly advising their clients against joining the federal action so they can fight in state court. “The only guaranteed number in this case is $2,500 — $2,500 won’t even get you a 50-yard-line seat at a USC football game, let alone compensate somebody for being sexually assaulted by their doctor when they were 18 or 17,” said John Manly, an attorney who represents 180 accusers. Attorney Gloria Allred, who represents 36 women who have accused Tyndall, said in a statement that the amount of money under the proposed settlement is “way too minimal” for what some of the women endured. Manly also criticized the proposed settlement as failing to hold USC accountable and called it an effort to cap future monetary damages. “We still don’t know when did USC first know, how often were they warned, what administrators were involved, was there criminal conduct?” Manly said. “Our clients, more than anything, want those answers and people held accountable, not because it helps their case but to protect the future women at USC.” Tara Lee, an attorney who represents USC, said questions regarding potential criminal conduct are being investigated “and those answers will be available when the investigation itself is completed.” “The settlement process they’re criticizing would not provide for that,” she said. “The settlement process would be very victim-focused to address their needs and make sure they have their claims identified and awarded.” Under the proposal, any woman who had an appointment with Tyndall will get $2,500. Those who submit written claims detailing their allegations and the impact on their lives would be eligible for between $7,500 and $20,000. Women who agree to further detail their allegations in a private interview with a psychologist could see damages of up to $250,000. Lee said the school tried to create a system that would allow women to decide how much to engage in the process. Attorney Mike Arias, who represents 80 accusers, criticized the speed of the proposed settlement, saying he and other attorneys were expecting USC to disclose more information. “USC may quell the depth of the anger and upset by getting hundreds of other victims to join the settlement, but it’s not going to be over,” Arias said, adding that he and other attorneys will fight the settlement’s approval. The university was first criticized in the case after the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this year that complaints about Tyndall’s care went unheeded for decades and that USC failed to report him to the medical board even after quietly forcing him to retire. Two administrators were fired, and President C.L. Max Nikias stepped down following the criticism. USC has denied accusations of a cover-up. Austin said that since she became interim university president, “a fair and respectful resolution for as many former patients as possible has been a priority for the university and for me personally.” “Many sweeping changes have been made and we continue to work every day to prevent all forms of misconduct on our campuses,” her statement said. On Thursday, 93 women who say Tyndall abused or harassed them announced the latest lawsuit against USC, saying it ignored decades of complaints. Dana Loewy said Tyndall assaulted her during an exam in 1993. “I am part of an accidental sisterhood of hundreds of women because the university we love betrayed our trust,” she said. ___ Associated Press writers John Antczak and Brian Melley in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Claim: USC agrees to pay $215M to settle doctor sex abuse claims.

Ex Output:
The University of Southern California said Friday that it would pay $215 million to settle claims of sexual abuse and harassment by a school gynecologist, but lawyers for hundreds of the accusers say it’s not enough money and the university has yet to fully disclose what it knew about the doctor’s behavior.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Chattanooga police investigation found Shawn Hickey had counseled at least six Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute patients who had been criminally charged by the department, creating a conflict of interest, the Chattanooga Times Free Press  reports, citing an internal affairs report. In January, the 23-year department veteran was spotted arriving late to mandatory in-service trainings and leaving early. He was placed on administrative leave in August pending the internal investigation. When asked about his training attendance, Hickey told investigators that he did leave at least one class early, but he didn’t remember why. He also acknowledged having a second job at the mental health institute where he worked “almost every day except for the weekend.” He was pretty sure he took time off from that job for the training though, he told investigators. Hickey’s captain and assistant chief knew about Hickey’s other job, but were told that it was only part time and wouldn’t interfere with his police responsibilities. The investigation found Hickey was actually working as a full-time social worker, clocking more than 37 hours at the institute during the week of police training. Hickey was fired from the mental health institute this summer after an internal investigation by the state Department of Mental Health found a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with Hickey’s role at the police department. The state alerted the police department to the six cases in which Hickey counseled patients criminally charged by the department. It said he also didn’t disclose his role with the department to those patients. A review of the GPS records for Hickey’s department-issued vehicle found that he would park the vehicle overnight at locations that weren’t his home address. He told investigators that he had been staying with his girlfriend, according to the report, which says he described the relationship as “great friends who travel together” and was trying to hide it from his wife. During a subsequent interview, Hickey told investigators, “OK, you caught me,” according to the report. He was fired last month and declined to comment when contacted by the newspaper on Tuesday. Claim: Tennessee officer fired after working 2nd job while on duty.

Ex Output:

A Tennessee police officer has been fired after an internal investigation found he was working a second job as a psychiatric social worker while on duty.