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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The Paris regional administration suspended the job of removing hazardous substances from the fire-ravaged Paris cathedral last month under pressure from labor inspectors concerned about health risks for workers. The administration had said that when the lead-removal work resumed, stricter safety procedures, new equipment and allowing much fewer workers inside at a time would “prevent any release of polluting elements to the outside.” But representatives from environmental groups and the CGT union said at a news conference Monday they don’t think the government safeguards go far enough. They asked for a regularly updated chart showing the level of lead in the air. Labor and environmental groups are also pushing for the creation of a medical center to monitor of firefighters, workers and residents. Paris Deputy Mayor Anne Souyris said updated measurements of lead levels are set for release on Tuesday. The decontamination work is scheduled to resume Wednesday, starting with the square in front of Notre Dame and adjacent streets, Souyris said. Hundreds of tons of lead that was in Notre Dame’s spire and roof melted during the April 15 fire, which came close to destroying the cathedral. Lead levels remain elevated at some spots inside and in the soil of the adjacent park and forecourt, according to the Paris regional health agency. Those areas have been closed to the public since the fire. The environmental activists and union officials said they want a containment shield built over Notre Dame to keep more lead from being released into the atmosphere. “For the efficiency of the decontamination measures within the area, it is absolutely necessary that the site is confined”, Annie Thebaud-Mony, co-founder of health and environment group Henri Pezerat, said. Notre Dame rector Patrick Chauvet acknowledged that lead can escape into the environment from a big hole in the cathedral’s roof but ruled out building a containment shield before the decontamination work resumes. Paris authorities ordered new checks of schools and day care centers in the Notre Dame neighborhood and recommended blood tests for children under age 7 and pregnant women who live nearby. Children are especially vulnerable to health problems from lead poisoning and exposure. Claim: France: Groups want Notre Dame enclosed during lead cleanup.
[A]: Environmental groups and one of France’s largest labor unions called Monday for a containment shield and other safety measures to ensure decontamination work at Notre Dame Cathedral does not expose workers and residents to unsafe levels of lead.


[Q]: Paragraph: There were nearly 1,000 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year. Correct, there were 934 registered in 2017. The UK has the highest death rate in the EU from drugs. Estonia had the highest rate of drug-related deaths per million people aged 15 to 64 in the EU, based on research using data from 2015 and 2016. The UK placed joint-third alongside Ireland. Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU. Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016. Claim 1 of 4 Claim: Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU.
[A]: Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016.


[Q]: Paragraph: Readers aren’t given information about how much the probiotic might cost. The story states that twice as many people in the probiotic group experienced a decrease in depression scores when compared to the placebo group (64% vs. 32%). However, readers aren’t told the magnitude of the decrease in depression scores (did their depression decrease a little bit or a whole lot?). This is important information to include as it speaks to the efficacy of the probiotic supplement as a potential treatment for depression. We also wanted to know more about how symptoms were measured, and if researchers used a clinically validated tool to do so. For use of probiotics as a potential treatment for IBS, the story does discuss that no significant differences were found in improvement of symptoms between the groups. The story states that no serious side effects of the probiotic were reported, and this is sufficient for Satisfactory rating. Ideally it would have provided additional information about what would constitute a “serious” side effect. With the way the story is worded, it’s possible that other side effects were reported by study participants. This is important information to have in order to compare to other treatments for depression or IBS. The research study was a randomized controlled trial, which is considered the gold standard in study design, and the story does a good job of not overstating the research findings. It notes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend probiotics as a treatment for depression, and that larger independent trials are needed to confirm the findings. There is no disease mongering. There is a discussion early in the story that the research was funded by Nestle. The story also incorporates opinions from a research scientist who was not involved with the study who provides additional insights about the study’s findings. The story does address another type of probiotic, lactobacilli, noting that previous research has found the type of probiotic used in the current research, bifidobacteria, to be better at improving gastrointestinal symptoms. Although it appears close to the end, the story does state that the probiotic used in the study is not commercially available. The story does a good job of establishing where the true novelty of the research lies, which is in the study population used (individuals without IBS and depression or anxiety). By incorporating perspectives from an independent expert, the story does a good job of not relying solely on a news release. Claim: How Probiotics May Help Depression
[A]:
Depression and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are both common conditions in the US. Consequently, so any treatment that can effectively manage both conditions is an attractive one. This story about a new study looking at probiotics for depression does a good job identifying the strengths and limitations of the research, such as the small patient size and short duration of the study. Readers get additional insights about the meaning and implications of the findings from an independent expert who was not associated with the study. This is particularly helpful in this instance since the research was funded by Nestle, and readers may be more likely to interpret the results with skepticism. However, we think the story would have been stronger if it had dug into the measured benefits a bit more: How were symptoms measured–and by how much did they decrease? People hear a lot about probiotics and it’s important they be tested systematically and in controlled trials. It’s just as important that media coverage highlights the limitations of the trials–and this story did.