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 idea that the domestic dog descended from the grey wolf was originally established in 1993 using comparisons of wolf and dog mitochondrial DNA. This investigation showed that no other living animal was more closely related to the domestic dog than the grey wolf: “The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the grey wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of [mitochondrial DNA].” Mitochondrial DNA is passed down by the mother (without any genetic contribution from the father) and changes only through random mutations that occur from generation to generation. Scientists use this much smaller and separate DNA sequence to estimate when populations of animals first diverged and to estimate the evolutionary relationships between organisms. By the mid-2000s, new technology allowed scientists to map the much longer DNA sequence found on the chromosomes of wolves and dogs — the genes that actually code for physical traits and behaviors. These studies demonstrated a 99.9% similarity (technically 99.96%) between dog and grey wolf, as covered in a 2007 review paper on the topic: In general, the domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the grey wolf, from which it differs by only ~0.04% in nuclear coding-DNA sequence, and no dog [mitochondrial DNA] sequences have been found that show closer kinship to other canid species. This similarity is so profound that hybridization often occurs between dogs and wolves. By the biological definition of species, this would mean that the domestic dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf (canis lupus familiaris). There remains some debate, however, as to what the appropriate classification for the domestic dog would be, with some arguing that the domestic dog should be its own distinct species (canis familiaris). Claim: Dogs and wolves are genetically 99.9% identical.

A: These advances in genetic analysis have allowed scientists as well to pin down the probable timing of the split between these two canid lineages. A study published in 2015, which compared the whole genome sequence of dogs to a 35,000 year old Siberian wolf specimen, suggested the split likely occurred between 27,000 and 40,000 years ago, and that domestic dogs are likely themselves the descendants of a now extinct descendant of grey wolves.
****
Q: Paragraph: "As the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race veers toward a conclusion, the state’s next senator needs the support of women voters. Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen underscored that point when she targeted Republican challenger Scott Brown’s record supporting women’s reproductive rights during his tenure as a state senator from Massachusetts. Her aim was to undercut Brown’s assertion that he is a pro-choice politician. An ad with a female narrator released on Oct. 7 said, ""In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The ad, titled ""Force,"" drew a swift response from Brown. He held a press conference the same day the ad was released, calling it a lie and adding that it was ""not only insensitive, it is also deeply offensive."" ""I have always been a pro-choice, independent Republican and have a strong record of supporting women’s health care,"" Brown said in Derry, N.H., with his wife Gail by his side. Brown demanded that Shaheen pull the ad, and the next day he launched his own ad calling Shaheen’s commercial a ""smear campaign."" More than ever in this hotly contested Senate race, this seemed like a job for PolitiFact. For support, the ad, and Shaheen’s campaign, pointed to Massachusetts Senate Bill 979, ""An Act Relative to a Woman’s Right to Know,"" filed in 2005. While the bill co-sponsored by Brown and Republican Michael R. Knapik eventually failed, it would have given any woman seeking an abortion information and mandated 24 hours to consider the consequences of that decision. (Exceptions would only be given in the case of a medical emergency.) ""The purpose of the Woman's Right to Know Act is to ensure that every woman considering an abortion receives complete information on the procedure, the risks, the status of her unborn child, and her alternatives, and sufficient reflection time, thereby reducing the possibility of serious, lasting, or life threatening consequences of a medical, emotional and psychological nature,"" the bill states. Similar laws have been proposed and enacted in other states following a 1992 Supreme Court decision allowing the state of Pennsylvania under its ""Abortion Control Act"" to require a woman seeking an abortion to give her informed consent prior to the procedure, receive a host of information about abortion and adoption, and wait 24 hours before having an abortion. The introduction to the Massachusetts bill cites that Supreme Court decision, saying the state ""has an important interest in ensuring that women seeking abortions are provided a fully informed choice and a sufficient period of time to reflect on the information provided, ‘to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.’ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 882 (1992)."" So how about those photographs of fetuses that women would be ""forced"" to look at? Like similar laws proposed and passed elsewhere, the proposed Massachusetts law would have required doctors or their representatives to provide women with lots of information at least 24 hours before an abortion was scheduled, including the names of adoption agencies and contact information for public and private agencies that offer financial and medical support to women throughout a pregnancy and after childbirth. It also required women to receive descriptions of the ""anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including color photographs."" If photos were unavailable ""realistic drawings"" were considered acceptable. The bill made clear that photos of fetuses must be provided to women seeking abortions, but didn’t stop there. It also called for descriptions of the different methods of abortion and ""the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications commonly associated with each method; a description of the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications of pregnancy and delivery; a description of the support obligations of the father of a child born alive."" Before performing an abortion, the doctor or a representative would have to ask the woman if she had ""seen"" the information and ""provide the woman with an opportunity to contact abortion alternative agencies at this time should she so desire."" In addition, a woman’s signature was required before the abortion was performed to give her consent and ""indicate that she has been offered the information described in this section."" Brown says the bill was intended to give adoption a chance and ""did not force women to do anything. I would never force women to do anything."" He’s got a point. Nowhere in the bill is the word ""force"" used. Still, the language of the bill certainly ensures women would be given the information, asks them if they had ""seen it,"" and provided at least 24 hours to review it before having an abortion. Our ruling Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification." Claim: In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses.

A: "Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification."
****
Q: Paragraph: Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant said in his ruling that the county violated state law by terminating coverage for beneficiaries even though they turned in their renewal paperwork on time, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. The judge ordered the county to fix the problem. Nearly 4 million people in LA County rely on Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid. The program is funded by state and federal government and provides coverage to low-income residents and people who are disabled. From December 2016 to December 2017, about 22,000 people in LA County wrongly lost Medi-Cal benefits, according to evidence cited in the judge’s decision. The problems appear to have resulted from a backlog of applications and a faulty computer system, according to court documents. “We hope that now the county will no longer be yanking Medi-Cal from over 2,000 patients a month, and that patients in our county who desperately need this life-sustaining Medi-Cal coverage will be able to keep it,” said David Kane, an attorney with the nonprofit Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in December 2016 by several Medi-Cal beneficiaries represented by the nonprofit and other firms. Carol Northern, one of the plaintiffs, said she was skeptical yet hopeful that the county would change its practices. Northern, who has a blood disease that requires several medicines, was kicked off Medi-Cal in 2016 even though she completed her renewal packet on time, she said. “I would go in there to file my paperwork, I never knew what was going to happen,” said Northern, who lives in Palmdale. “I think it’s going to affect a lot of people, I’m flying high right now, but I still have the ‘what ifs.’” The judge found that the county had failed to uphold state law. A final judgment that includes a plan for how the county will fix the problem will be rendered in the next few months. Once the judgment is finalized, county lawyers can appeal the decision. “This matter is still before the court, so it would be inappropriate for the county to comment before the judge can rule on a final round of submissions in the case,” a county spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. “However, it’s important to note that we are strongly committed to serving the public and making improvements in our processes wherever we can.” ___ Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/ Claim: Judge says LA County wrongly booted thousands off Medi-Cal.

A:
A judge ruled that Los Angeles County wrongly canceled Medi-Cal coverage for thousands of residents, often leaving them without access to health care and needed medicines.
****