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 Agency for Health Care Administration banned Floridian Gardens Assisted Living Facility from taking new patients Friday, citing “an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare” at the Miami facility. The Miami Herald reports a survey uncovered at least two deaths and multiple falls due to “deficient practices.” The facility is owned by the same people that operated the Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills. Regulators tried to shut down Floridian Gardens after the Hollywood deaths. A criminal investigation is ongoing into the deaths at the Hollywood facility. A telephone message could not be left Saturday and an email to the facility was not immediately returned. ___ Information from: The Miami Herald, http://www.herald.com Claim: Admissions ban on Florida nursing home tied to Irma deaths.

Output: Florida health officials will not allow new patients to be admitted to an assisted living facility associated with a nursing home where a dozen residents died after the facility lost power in a hurricane.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Republican House leaders fanned out on the Sunday shows to defend a stop-gap measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security in their ongoing fight against President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration. They did not stray from talking points. TV audiences Sunday heard one specific number several times as hosts pressed the GOP lawmakers to justify the chaos over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did,"" House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’ Face the Nation. Both Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise repeated the ""22 times"" talking point on NBC’s Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, respectively. Even Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, one of 52 Republicans who opposed a three-week funding plan, used the figure to defend his House Freedom Caucus’ actions on CNN’s State of the Union. PolitiFact wanted to see where the number comes from and just how accurate it is. What we’re talking about The controversy stems from Obama’s Nov. 20, 2014, announcement that he would delay deportations of unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years but have children who are citizens or have green cards. More than 4 million people could qualify. An applicant could qualify for a work permit and avoid being deported for three years at a time if he or she can pass a background check and pay a fee. The decision is bound for higher court battles after a Texas federal judge issued a temporary injunction on the action, saying it may have violated procedural rules for using executive power. This action came on top of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012, an executive action to protect ""dreamers,"" or people brought here illegally as children and have not committed crimes. That move, too, was viewed by critics as an abuse of power, but supporters said it helped provide a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of residents. After Obama’s post-midterm elections announcement on immigration, Boehner’s office unleashed a Buzzfeed-style blog post detailing ""22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law."" What’s on Boehner’s list Our PolitiFact Texas colleagues dissected Boehner’s list for similar fact-checks of U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican who led the legal challenge of Obama’s actions when he was still attorney general. PolitiFact Texas tracked down each of the citations in Boehner’s post, comparing what they said Obama said with transcripts and news stories. In a nutshell, the majority of the examples are of Obama saying he did not have power to do more on immigration without Congress. Others, as we’ll explain in a moment, say something more nuanced or aren’t specific to immigration. We won’t go through every quote that supports Boehner’s point here, but here are a few we culled from a document created by PolitiFact Texas: In September 2012, Obama was asked if he would follow up his recent protective move for students by doing something similar for non-criminal immigrants such as the parents of U.S.-born children. Obama replied that ""as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do… we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally,"" as in parents deported. (No. 13 on Boehner’s list.) At a presidential debate in October 2012, Obama and Mitt Romney were asked: ""What do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green card that are currently living here as productive members of society?"" Obama said: ""I've done everything that I can on my own."" (No. 14 on Boehner’s list.) In a January 2013 Telemundo interview, Obama was asked why he couldn’t protect mothers living here without authorization from deportation as he had served law-abiding students. ""I’m not a king,"" Obama replied, akin to his response the same month to a similar query from Univision. ""You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And-- you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws-- we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize-- what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law."" (No. 16 on Boehner’s list.) So clearly there are examples of Obama saying he couldn’t do more with executive action, then later doing exactly that. That’s why PolitiFact previously rated Obama’s claim that ""my position hasn’t changed"" as False. What should not be counted But also included on Boehner’s list of 22 are quotes where Obama was either suggesting his executive powers did not have hard limits or was silent on his executive power on immigration. Here are a few problems with quotes included on Boehner’s list. In two instances during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama criticized ""signing statements"" used by President George W. Bush that interpret laws, but he did not bring up immigration. Immigration was also not part of his reply to a question at a 2010 MTV/BET event when he said, ""I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there,"" in response to a question about ""don’t ask, don’t tell."" (Nos. 1, 2 and 5.) In September 2011, with his deferred-action plan on the horizon, Obama reiterated that he cannot just change laws unilaterally in response to a question about possible administrative relief for students who don’t have legal residency. But he hinted that there might be room within his authority, saying, ""what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources."" (No. 12 on Boehner’s list.) Obama’s July 2013 Univision interview hit similar notes when he was asked if he could grant amnesty to the undocumented population. He called for a legislative solution and said ""probably not,"" adding, ""I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus."" (No. 18 on Boehner’s list.) In August 2014, Obama told reporters he may ""scour our authorities to try to make progress"" without congressional cooperation. Obama said, ""We’re going to make sure that every time we take one of these steps that we are working within the confines of my executive power. But I promise you the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done."" (No. 22 on Boehner’s list.) Asked why Boehner continues to cite 22 examples, spokesman Michael Steel told PolitiFact ""we obviously stand by"" the count. Pressed to explain why, he said, ""Obviously, we're just going to agree to disagree about the ‘22 times’ figure, which we feel is accurate."" The bigger picture Whether the real number is 22, 15 or something less than that is more complicated by the specifics of Boehner’s claim. Boehner's claim is Obama said he couldn’t do ""what he eventually did."" Experts we talked to noted that Obama was not always so specific in the comments Boehner and his team cited. Boehner’s count factors in both instances of Obama talking about how he could not legalize or deport the entire undocumented population as well as more limited executive actions to relieve smaller populations. ""It gives me a headache,"" said Anna O. Law, a CUNY Brooklyn College political science professor, of the post, ""because they’re playing semantics."" Alex Nowrasteh, a Cato Institute immigration analyst, said he did not know what to make of the ""very political"" claim. Ultimately, much of it depends on your specific interpretation of each quote. Our ruling Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times. Clarification: This item was updated on March 2, 2015, to better explain the ruling of a federal judge in Texas." Claim: "On immigration, ""the president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."

Output: "Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: There is no direct cost to bystander CPR, so this category is not applicable. The story does a good job of giving exact numbers of survivors who did and didn’t receive CPR in the study. It provides exact survival times for ambulance arrivals at 5, 10, and 13 minutes. These statistics are provided both in terms of percentages and ratios. The intervention studied here involves a last-ditch emergency effort to revive a person who is dying. There are some potential harms if the resuscitated person survives, and the story didn’t mention those, but given the measured approach of this story and the nature of the research, we feel this one is N/A. In this story, important limitations of study findings are explained to some degree, enough to be satisfactory. An author of the study is cited explaining that the findings do not definitely establish that CPR is actually the direct cause of the higher survival rates reported. The reason for that, unstated, is that this study reports the correlation between cases in which bystander CPR was administered and patient survival rates. It wasn’t an experiment that could prove one caused the other–that could have been made clearer. Granted, at the end of the story we learn “the study is observational and doesn’t prove bystander CPR increases survival odds, the authors note in Circulation. Researchers also lacked data on how quickly bystanders intervened after the start of cardiac arrest, which could influence outcomes, the authors note.” But since some readers may not know what “observational” means, this could have been spelled out more. There is no disease mongering in the story. The story quotes two independent experts whose specific credentials are clearly presented. These sources are cited on the general mechanism of CPR and the importance of starting CPR early. Ideally, they’d also speak to the research itself, providing context on what the general public should know. But given that the story presents the research accurately, and included a discussion of limitations, this is a minor concern here. In a way this story is all about the alternative to bystander CPR: doing nothing until the ambulance arrives. There really isn’t another alternative that could have been discussed. The story doesn’t outright state that pretty much anybody is capable of performing CPR. However, it does imply that CPR is widely available by explaining that the biggest barrier to bystander CPR is that too few people know how to do it. More explanation about how easy it is to learn the procedure (training can be done in just a few minutes) would have improved that aspect of the article. While the story doesn’t make it explicitly clear what’s novel, it does provide enough context for the reader to understand that this study builds upon past research that was more general. That’s done via this quote: “We know from previous research that 1 in 8 people survive after a cardiac arrest if a bystander initiates CPR before the arrival of the emergency medical services,” Rajan said by email. “In contrast, if CPR is not initiated before the arrival of the emergency medical services, only 1 in 30 people survive a cardiac arrest.” The story does not appear to be based solely on a press release. It quotes two experts who were not involved in the study. Claim: Bystander CPR may boost survival odds when ambulance delayed


Output: Bystander CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) remains an underutilized resource for victims of cardiac arrest. This story adds to evidence about how important it may be for observers to step in quickly when someone near them collapses, without waiting for the arrival of an ambulance. The story did a good job providing exact numbers on what the researchers measured, and it mentioned a few limitations to the study. It could have been a bit more clear on how this was measured–that it was looking at correlations between bystander CPR and survival rates, and not a direct experiment where more factors can be controlled (such as making sure the CPR is administered correctly). Studies like the one reported in this article are important for building understanding among the lay public about the benefits–and limits–of CPR.