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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Pitching for a bump in the minimum wage, a labor leader suggested a hike could save all Texans money by elevating low-income workers who’d no longer need government help. We don’t know about that. But we flipped on the Texas Truth-O-Meter after John Patrick, president of the Texas AFL-CIO, said at a January 2017 Capitol press conference: ""If you have a family, the current minimum wage easily qualifies you for food stamps."" Really? ""Food stamps"" is an outdated term referring to food benefits available to income-eligible residents through the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Beneficiaries purchase food and groceries using electronic benefit transfer cards. Nationally on average in 2015, about 45.8 million people in 22.5 million households monthly participated in SNAP, according to the federal government, and because benefits are available to most low-income households, participants represent a broad cross-section of the nation's poor. A November 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture report states that in the year, 55 percent of SNAP households with children included people with jobs. Still, the average gross income of participating households was $786 a month, the report says, which breaks out to $9,432 a year. We asked the Texas AFL-CIO for the basis of Patrick’s claim. By email, spokesman Ed Sills said a full-time minimum-wage Texas worker earns $7.25 an hour (identical to the federal minimum). Multiplied over 2,000 work hours in a year, that’s an annual income of approximately $14,500. The labor group’s use of 2,000 hours in a work year contrasts with the 2,087-hour work year used by the federal government in its data assumptions. Using that figure, a single full-time worker would earn $15,130 in a year. Sills otherwise said that according to maximum monthly income limits posted by the state, a family could easily qualify for SNAP with a single worker earning the minimum wage. He pointed out the relevant chart, posted on a Texas Health and Human Services Commission web page titled  ""SNAP Food Benefits."" We proceeded to crunch the figures, which mostly supported Patrick’s claim, though we also noticed Patrick hadn’t said if he was thinking solely of families with one full-time minimum-wage worker; Sills told us by phone that he believed so. A twist Then came a twist causing us to realize the commission-posted figures were out of date. We recognized as much when Christine Mann, a commission press officer, responded to our inquiry about Patrick’s claim by providing SNAP-eligibility household income thresholds lower than the thresholds on the agency’s SNAP food benefits web page--which Mann told us would be updated. Mann later provided a commission web link to the up-to-date income eligibility figures. For our part, we spotted the same income-eligibility numbers on a USDA web page that describes the figures as in effect for the fiscal year running through September 2017. Mann’s response also indicated that qualifying for SNAP is more complicated than simply grossing less than a particular threshold. ""Eligibility for SNAP is based on household size, the countable amount of gross and net income for all mandatory household members, and allowed deductions"" for items including shelter, utilities, child care and medical expenses, Mann wrote. Agency confirmation Mann otherwise told us that a single minimum-wage full-time worker in a household of two to three people would draw monthly gross income of $1,255.70. In support of Patrick’s claim, that amount runs short of the up-to-date income thresholds to qualify for SNAP of $1,736 a month for a two-person household or $2,184 a month for a three-person household. Bigger households with a single full-time minimum-wage worker would qualify too, we calculated, as would households of four or more with two full-time minimum-wage workers. We identified one exception: A household of three with two full-time minimum-wage workers, which would have a combined gross monthly income of $2,511.40, would earn too much to qualify for SNAP at the qualifying gross-income threshold of $2,184 a month for a household of three. We separately asked the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which says it advocates for conditions enabling every Texan to be healthy, well-educated and financially secure, to assess Patrick’s statement. By email, Oliver Bernstein described calculations like our own; he said the claim holds up. Our ruling Patrick said that in Texas, ""if you have a family, the current minimum wage easily qualifies you for food stamps."" Our finding is that a household of two or more residents including a single full-time minimum-wage worker would clearly qualify for SNAP as would a household of four or more with two full-time minimum-wage workers. A three-person household with two such workers would gross too much to qualify. – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Claim: If you have a family, the current minimum wage easily qualifies you for food stamps.

Ex Output:
"Patrick said that in Texas, ""if you have a family, the current minimum wage easily qualifies you for food stamps."" Our finding is that a household of two or more residents including a single full-time minimum-wage worker would clearly qualify for SNAP as would a household of four or more with two full-time minimum-wage workers. A three-person household with two such workers would gross too much to qualify."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Malls, restaurants and streets in Daegu, the country’s fourth largest city with a population of 2.5 million, were largely empty in scenes that residents and social media users likened to a disaster movie. “It’s like someone dropped a bomb in the middle of the city. It looks like a zombie apocalypse,” Kim Geun-woo, a 28-year-old resident told Reuters by telephone. “Even Dongseong-ro Street – the most crowded centre of the city – is empty,” he said, adding that he had tried to buy surgical masks but shops were sold out. Korea’s Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) reported 53 new cases of the virus on Thursday, following 20 a day earlier, taking the total across the country to 104. Of that national tally, 70 patients are from Daegu or nearby and the majority have been traced to an infected 61-year-old woman known as “Patient 31” who attended a church, a scenario that KCDC described as a “super-spreading event”. South Korea also reported the first death of a coronavirus patient, though the man’s exact cause of death was being investigated. The man was among 13 people at a hospital near Daegu who tested positive for the virus. Health officials said they were investigating whether there were links between the outbreak at the church and the hospital. The hospital would be temporarily shut down and about 600 staff and patients would be tested for the virus, Yonhap news agency reported, citing officials. Several major department stores, including at least one in Seoul, were closed after reports that Patient 31 had visited in recent weeks, Yonhap reported. Daegu Mayor Kwon Young-jin told residents to stay indoors as he warned of likely further cases. “We are in an unprecedented crisis,” he said at a briefing in the city, about 240 km (150 miles) southwest of the capital Seoul. Kwon cautioned that at least 90 more of the about 1,000 other people who attended services at the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony were also showing symptoms. “We plan to test all believers of that church and have asked them to stay at home isolated from their families,” Kwon said. South Korea’s vice health minister Kim Kang-lip said at a separate briefing in the administrative city of Sejong that the situation was “very grave”. The cases previously reported in South Korea had mostly involved people who had travelled individually to China or come into contact with somebody who had, but it is unclear how Patient 31 contracted the virus. Daegu authorities ordered the shutdown of all kindergartens, while all schools will postpone the beginning of the spring semester scheduled for early March by one week in an unprecedented move, Yonhap said. The Defence Ministry banned troops stationed in Daegu from leaving their barracks and receiving guests, while a soldier who had recently visited his home in Daegu tested positive for the virus. The U.S. military imposed similar restrictions on its army base in the city, which houses thousands of troops, family members and civilian employees, curbing travel and closing schools and child-care centres. Media footage showed the few people on Daegu’s usually bustling downtown streets wore face masks and kept far apart. Topics such as “Daegu lockdown” and “Daegu church” were among the top searches on major South Korean portal Naver as debate heated up online about whether the city should be sealed off from the rest of the country. A KCDC official told Reuters the government was not considering that measure. The church at the centre of the outbreak is a branch of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, a religious movement founded in 1984 by South Korean Lee Man-hee who has about 500,000 followers. Some commentators on social media blamed the custom of churchgoers sitting on the floor close to each other during services as increasing the risk of spreading the virus. Shincheonji said on Wednesday it had closed its Daegu church and instructed that services elsewhere be held online or individually at home. Claim: 'Like a zombie apocalypse': Residents on edge as coronavirus cases surge in South Korea.

Ex Output:
Residents of a South Korean city at the centre of a new coronavirus outbreak described empty streets, deserted shops, and a climate of fear as a surge in confirmed cases linked to a church raised the prospect of wider transmission.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper eased pandemic restrictions on retail stores before doing so for churches -- a move that prompted pushback from some members of the faith community. Non-essential stores and indoor church services were both initially forbidden to operate under Cooper’s stay-at-home order. When Cooper launched Phase One of reopening North Carolina, he allowed some stores to open but didn’t allow churches to hold services indoors. Experts generally agree that traditional church customs such as singing, passing around bulletins and even sharing food would make worship services especially dangerous during the coronavirus outbreak. But Cooper’s critics argued for a chance to worship while being responsible. During a press conference on May 12, Cooper said his decision was based on science. ""We know that inside it is much more likely that you’re going to transmit this virus, particularly when you’re sitting or standing in one place for a long period of time, and this is across the board. And some people are trying to compare this with retail. With retail, people are moving around and you don’t have as much a chance to spread the virus (as you do) when people are sitting or standing indoors."" Since then, a judge’s ruling has enabled indoor church services in North Carolina. A US District Court Judge allowed for a restraining order on Cooper’s rules, and Cooper said he won’t appeal. Still, we wondered which is more dangerous: sitting in a building with the same group of people for a prolonged period, or walking around a building with an ever-changing group of people? The answer isn’t simple. Is it possible that a church could practice social distancing well enough to prevent virus spread? Yes. Is it also possible that one shopper could linger too long around another shopper who’s infected? Also yes. Because of those variables, the country’s top health organizations told us they haven’t compared the two environments enough to say whether one is more dangerous than another. However, experts do believe that sitting in one place for a long time does pose a threat -- while shopping usually allows people the physical freedom to avoid someone who might be infected. For this fact check, we reached out to the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is directed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. None of the groups offered specifics on which scenario is more dangerous. The WHO doesn’t categorize activities by risk because each scenario ""depends on a range of factors, from the local transmission scenario that is occurring, to prevention measures adopted by individuals to the IPC procedures in place in these public spaces,"" said Ashley Baldwin, a regional spokeswoman. Fauci’s group responded similarly: ""I’m not aware that this is anything our researchers have explored,"" NIAID spokesman Ken Pekoc said. The CDC hasn’t compared them either, CDC spokeswoman Kate Grusich said. ""CDC has not compared locations or settings for COVID-19 transmission, so we can’t comment on these questions at this time,"" she said. But the CDC does emphasize the risk of time spent around other people in close proximity. Kelly Haight Connor, communications manager for North Carolina’s health department, responded to PolitiFact questions on Cooper’s behalf. She pointed out several instances where the CDC warns against large gatherings of people. The CDC’s webpage on social distancing says ""COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period."" The CDC, which acknowledges the ""risk of gatherings,"" also offers guidance for churches hoping to hold services during the pandemic. Recommendations include: scheduling multiple services, with enough time between each to allow for cleaning and disinfecting high-touch surfaces, promoting social distancing, limiting the sharing of materials, considering holding services and gatherings in a large, well-ventilated area or outdoors. The novel coronavirus travels through respiratory droplets expelled when someone coughs, sneezes or talks. Without definitive studies comparing the likelihood of spread in two environments, we turned to experts for their opinion. Karen Hoffmann, the immediate past president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, told PolitiFact that the ability to walk away from someone is key. And if you do pass someone in an aisle at Target, experts believe you’re less at risk than someone sitting still in a confined space. ""I would not worry about walking by someone,"" Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University, told Slate. ""Even in a health care setting, contact is defined by being near someone for a certain amount of time,"" Adalja said. ""I would not worry about these fleeting encounters. The virus isn’t airborne—droplets need to get from one person to another."" Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, told us she generally agrees. ""Reports from indoor spaces (restaurants, offices) suggest that both physical proximity and duration of exposure are important for transmission,"" Rasmussen said in an email. ""So sitting still around others in close physical proximity is probably higher risk than incidentally passing by someone in a store, but the risks aren’t quantified because there are a lot of variables that can impact this."" A recent NPR article categorized 14 different activities by their level of risk for infection. Worship services? ""High risk."" Going shopping? ""Risk varies."" ""Crowds with high density lead to substantial increase in risk,"" said Dr. William Miller, an epidemiologist at Ohio State University. ""The major mitigating factor is that people don't mingle in a single place for long."" While churches may be able to mitigate coronavirus spread, there are multiple examples of churches failing to take precautions -- and thus becoming the source of small outbreaks. A church revival in Hopkins County, Kentucky was linked to at least 30 cases and three deaths, according to The Courier Journal. Officials in California connected 71 cases to one church in a suburb of Sacramento, The Guardian reported. The Washington Post recently listed several examples in a story about the dangers of worship during the pandemic. On its Facebook page, the CDC on May 19 used a rural Arkansas church as an example of how fast coronavirus can spread in group settings. The CDC reported that two people with coronavirus symptoms attended the church in early March. ""Of the 92 church members who attended the gatherings, 35 were later confirmed to have COVID-19, which led to three deaths. Through contact tracing, an additional 26 confirmed cases were identified in the community,"" the CDC’s Facebook post says. ""This outbreak highlights the potential for widespread transmission of COVID-19 during in-person, faith-based events."" The CDC posted a report on the Arkansas outbreak on its website. Cooper said shopping isn’t as likely to spread coronavirus as church services because ""people are moving around and you don’t have as much a chance to spread the virus (as you do) when people are sitting or standing indoors."" The world’s leading health organizations have not offered a risk comparison between shopping and attending a worship service in part because there are so many variables. However, generally speaking, experts are definitely less worried about spaces where people can move freely than they are about spaces where people sit near each other for long periods of time." Claim: “With retail, people are moving around and you don’t have as much a chance to spread the virus (as you do) when people are sitting or standing indoors” for long periods of time.

Ex Output:

N.C. Gov. Roy Cooper faced pushback for loosening restrictions on retail stores but not worship services. Cooper's reasoning: sitting around others for long periods of time is more dangerous than walking by someone in a store. While the world's top health organizations haven't compared those exact scenarios, experts generally agree with him.