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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Not applicable. The cost of olive oil is not in question. The story only cited a 41% lower risk of stroke but didn’t give the actual numbers of how many versus how many in the different groups. That may give an inflated sense of benefit or risk reduction. Not applicable. Unlike the LA Times piece, WebMD rurns to an editorial writer and two other independent experts to evaluate the evidence. It mentioned that this was an observational study but didn’t explicitly define that or why that’s a potential limitation. No disease-mongering of stroke in the story. Great sourcing – with 3 independent voices besides the study authors. The story ends, appropriately, with this: “Keeping blood pressure controlled, not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a healthy diet that is low in salt and rich in fruits and vegetables can also help reduce stroke risk.” Not applicable. The availability of olive oil is not in question. The relative novelty of the study’s focus was clear in the story. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Olive Oil Linked to Reduced Stroke Risk
Example Output: An added nice touch was the discussion of the possible etiology of the olive oil effect (e.g., inflammation). Overall, a solid summary. When an observational study points to a statistical association between one factor and one outcome, it is important to explain why that doesn’t necessarily mean that one factor caused that one outcome. This story did a better job of that than its LA Times competition.

Example Input: Paragraph: Speaking at a White House coronavirus briefing, Trump said he would unveil a new advisory group next week that would focus on the process of economic opening. The president, who faced criticism for playing down the threat from the virus in its early stages, has chafed at the devastating economic impact of the strict social distancing measures his administration has recommended. The guidelines are set to stay in place through the end of April. The president will then have to decide whether to extend them or start encouraging people to go back to work and a more normal way of life. “I’m going to have to make a decision, and I ... hope to God that it’s the right decision,” Trump said. “It’s the biggest decision I’ve ever had to make.”  Trump said the facts would determine the next move, though he reiterated his desire to re-open the economy. Asked what metrics he would use to make his judgment, he pointed at his forehead: “The metrics right here, that’s my metrics.”  Trump suggested the number of new infections was flattening and the death toll would be lower than initial projections of more than 100,000. He said he would announce the members of the new advisory council possibly on Tuesday. Some state governors will be appointed. Trump said the aggressive social distancing and stay-at-home measures taken to combat the coronavirus were showing signs of success, and situations in hot spots such as New Orleans, Louisiana, and Detroit, Michigan, were stabilizing. U.S. deaths from the virus topped 18,100 on Friday, according to a Reuters tally. But administration officials cautioned it was still too early to ease restrictions, and said the faithful should not gather in churches on the Easter Sunday holiday. “We know it’s difficult in this time of year in particular to avoid gatherings of more than 10, but we’re grateful that so many churches, synagogues and places of worship have done just that,” Vice President Mike Pence said, urging worshipers “to continue to heed the guidelines.”  New U.S. government figures show coronavirus infections will spike during the summer if stay-at-home orders are lifted after 30 days as planned, according to projections first reported by the New York Times and confirmed by a Department of Homeland Security official. If shelter-in-place orders are lifted after 30 days, the death toll is estimated to reach 200,000, according to the projections, obtained from DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump said at the briefing that he and his advisers have not seen the new projections. Trump said he was getting fewer calls from governors urgently seeking equipment and help. “We’re in great shape with ventilators, we’re in great shape with protective clothing, we have additional planeloads coming in. But we’re not getting any calls from governors at this moment,” he said. Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House task force on the coronavirus, said the United States was starting to flatten the curve the way Italy did, with a lot of the success coming from progress in New York City. Officials have pointed to declining rates of coronavirus hospitalizations and need for intensive care in hard-hit New York as signs that social distancing measures are paying off. “But as encouraging as they are, we have not reached the peak. And so every day we need to continue to do what we did yesterday, and the week before and the week before that because that’s what in the end is going to take us across the peak and down the other side,” Birx said. Claim: Using his own 'metrics,' Trump says ending U.S. shutdown is biggest decision yet.
Example Output: President Donald Trump said on Friday he faced his biggest decision yet with regard to when to re-open the U.S. economy from its coronavirus shutdown and pledged to listen to health experts when making that determination.

Example Input: Paragraph: "This is the only of the five stories to actually put a dollar figure on the classes. ""Even the cost of a class, which can top $50 a month, is modest compared with the cost of many medications. And unlike drugs, tai chi had no harmful side effects, she says."" Unlike the AP story, which made the mistake of saying that ""symptoms improved significantly for the tai chi group and little for the others,"" this story, at least, presents some numbers. The trouble is, those numbers are in relative terms. So, instead of saying that three months after the classes ended, 27 patients who took tai chi classes felt better and 17 who tried other therapies also felt better, it presents the difference as 82% versus 53%. That seems more dramatic. Absolute data would be more meaningful. Why make the reader do the math? The story is one of the few stories that covered this study to actually point out that ""unlike drugs, tai chi had no harmful side effects."" In the end, because of the comments from Gloria Yeh, the story puts the appropriate caveats on the findings. This sentence does a great job of summarizing some of the problems with the study: ""Yeh notes that researchers don’t know which aspects of tai chi were most helpful: the exercise, deep breathing, relaxation exercise, meeting new friends or learning from a charismatic teacher."" This story actually spends too little time talking about the condition itself. The AP devoted a whole paragraph in an eight paragaph story to the condition, and the LA Times led its piece by describing the disease. USA Today instead went with a very nice description of tai chi, putting the emphasis on the beauty and simiplicity of the therapy rather than the difficulty clinicians have had correctly diagnosing and treating fibromyalgia. This is the only story to include the phrase ""white crane spreads its wings"" or anything like that. The story doesn’t actually quote any of the authors and instead quotes two outside experts, one of whom wrote an accompanying editorial. It fails to fully attribute the comments made by ""Callahan."" It appears that the writer means Leigh F. Callahan, who just completed a study of tai chi for arthritis and was quoted by other reporters. (How did this slip through copy editing? Was this a slip-up only in the online version?) But we can’t give credit to an independent source that the story doesn’t adequately identify. The story does not compare the therapy to existing alternatives or even discuss existing alternatives, aside from a passing reference at the very end to medications. This is the only one of the five stories to note that ""A study in 2007 from the National Institutes of Health found that 2.3 million American adults had used tai chi in the past year."" This doesn’t tell you whether tai chi classes are as readily available in Oklahoma as they are in New Mexico, but it does give you a sense of how popular they are. It is unclear from this story whether tai chi has been studied before for other conditions. It has. It also is unclear what fibromyalgia patients now do for therapy. The LA Times, for example, pointed out that patients in the study stopped taking drugs for treatment, for example. The story does not rely on a news release." Claim: Tai chi may ease fibromyalgia pain
Example Output:
"The story does two things better than all the other stories. It puts a dollar figure to the cost of tai chi therapy, and it gives people a better sense of how popular tai chi is. It could have done a better job evaluating the evidence and providing some absolute numbers to help readers decide how seriously to take these results. Why not just give the absolute numbers? How many out of how many? Why make the reader do the math? ""79% of tai chi participants said their symptoms had improved, compared with 39% of those in the educational class…Even three months after the classes ended, 82% of tai chi students still felt better, compared with 53% of the comparison group."" Sure, the denominators are in the story but we shouldn’t need to pull out the calculator to figure out 79% of x, vs. 39% of x."