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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: “Even though the majority of strokes and heart attacks occur in people who are 65 and older, studies have found that cholesterol-lowering drugs are not prescribed as often for older people as they are for younger people,” Dr. Seemant Chaturvedi of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, said in a statement. “These results show that using these drugs is just as beneficial for people who are over 65 as they are for younger people.”   In April, British researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that treating high blood pressure in people 80 and older cut their risk of fatal strokes and other heart problems. Statins cut the risk of heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of fatty substances such as low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also raise levels of high-density lipoprotein or “good” cholesterol. They include atorvastatin, made by Pfizer Inc under the brand name Lipitor; pravastatin or Pravachol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb; fluvastatin, made by Novartis AG under the brand name Lescol, and several others. Seemant and colleagues studied 4,731 people 18 and older who had a recent stroke or a mini-stroke as part of a study sponsored by Pfizer. About half were over 65, with an average age of 72. The other half were under 65 and had an average age of 54. In each age group, about half were taking Lipitor and the other half were on a placebo. The statin worked equally well in both groups, the researchers reported in the journal Neurology. It lowered LDL cholesterol by about 61 points in the group of older patients and by about 59 points in the younger age group. Stroke is the No. 3 killer in the United States behind heart disease and cancer. The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 780,000 Americans will have strokes this year. They will kill 150,000 people and permanently disable 15 percent to 30 percent of survivors. Claim: Statins fight stroke in older people too.

Answer: Older people who have had a stroke or mini-stroke benefit from cholesterol-lowering statin drugs just as much as younger people do, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.


Question: Paragraph: Numerous bills on expanding access to health care, and growing training and educational opportunities for residents were included among the 134 new measures the Legislative Council accepted last week. The Portland Press Herald reports only the titles of the bill have been submitted for introduction in the lawmaking session that starts in January. The measures also appear to be a response to the recent leaked propane explosion in a building in Farmington. The state has no current regulation requiring natural gas or propane leak detectors or warning devices. Lawmakers will also take up about 500 other measures either held by Gov. Janet Mills or left over from this year’s session. Claim: Health care, education to lead Maine’s legislative debates.

Answer: Several bills focused on health care and education are expected to lead legislative debates at the Maine Statehouse in 2020.


Question: Paragraph: At issue before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a September 2018 ruling by a federal judge who threw out National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s rules for fish farms in the Gulf of Mexico, saying Congress never gave the agency authority to make them. An attorney for groups representing commercial and recreational fishing interests, food safety advocates and conservationists urged the three-judge appellate panel to uphold the 2018 ruling. Those groups cite numerous worries about the effect of fish farming on market prices for wild-caught fish and the effects on fishing communities, the environmental consequences of the use of antibiotics to control disease, the unpredictable genetic effects on wild, native fish stocks if farmed fish escape from farm pens and other concerns. NOAA maintains that fish farming, including that on the open sea, is vital to future seafood production and can help provide year-round jobs while rebuilding protected species and habitats. A three-judge appellate panel closely questioned NOAA attorney Frederick Turner on whether current fisheries law enables the agency to develop regulations — and about past failures by Congress to pass legislation addressing the issue. “Why would we step in and say you get what Congress hasn’t given you?” Judge Stephen Higginson asked Turner at one point. Turner argued that the existing law is broad and gives NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service the authority to permit and regulate fish farming, not just the taking of wild-caught fish. The appellate panel is expected to rule later this year. Attorney George Kimbrell, speaking for a variety of groups who say Congress must act first, said after the hearing that NOAA may indeed be the right agency to permit and regulate federal water aquaculture, but not until Congress addresses the issue and passes a law. “Don’t shoehorn it into a law that was never intended for that purpose and whose metrics just don’t match,” Kimbrell said. Claim: Future of fish farming in federal waters at issue in court.

Answer:
The potential environmental and economic consequences posed by proposals for fish farming in federal waters dictate that Congress — not a federal agency — must decide how to regulate the industry, an attorney told a federal appeals court Monday.