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: According to the Maine Center for Disease Control, the number of syphilis cases reported in the state increased from 48 in 2016 to 84 last year. The number of national syphilis cases increased by 18 percent in between 2015 and 2016. Maine Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman tells the Bangor Daily News the department isn’t sure why syphilis has increased in recent years. Portland Public Health Center medical director Dr. Christina DeMatteo believes opioid use and waning concerns about HIV have contributed to attitudes about having unprotected sex. Public health advocates say budget cuts resulting in changes in prevention and treatment have also affected rates in the state. ___ Information from: Bangor Daily News, http://www.bangordailynews.com Claim: Maine sees increase in reported syphilis cases.

Output: Public health officials in Maine say there has been an increase in syphilis cases, mirroring a national trend.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Xuzhou, around 400 miles (640 kilometers) from Beijing, is implementing an “orange alert” pollution control program aimed at “ensuring air quality during the National Day period”, according to a notice reviewed by Reuters and authenticated by industry sources. China’s environment ministry warned on Monday that “unfavorable” weather conditions would lead to a prolonged and widespread outbreak of smog stretching along the eastern coast for around two weeks, and urged local governments throughout affected regions to take swift action. The smog has already forced Beijing and surrounding cities to implement special restrictions on heavy industries, including steel, power and cement, in order to ensure skies remain clear during the Chinese capital’s 70th anniversary parade on Oct. 1. Beijing’s environment bureau said on Wednesday that it had also issued an orange alert, the second highest in a four-tier pollution alarm system, lasting from Thursday until further notice. It will curtail production and restrict traffic. Xuzhou, home to more than a dozen steel firms, started restricting steel output on Wednesday, and will close down all production from Thursday evening. Coking coal producers will also be subject to controls. Restrictions will be placed on freight vehicle deliveries in major industries and on straw burning in rural districts. The city will also work to source its electricity from cleaner and efficient sources over the next few days. In smog-prone Anyang, another major steel producing city in central China’s Henan province, authorities have implemented “red alert” pollution control measures that started on Wednesday, imposing tougher restrictions on industry and transportation. According to a government notice circulated by traders and the local media, Anyang ordered small, independent sintering plants to close on Wednesday, and will shut down all steel production from Thursday evening. Anyang was one of China’s most polluted cities last winter, with concentrations of PM2.5 up 27% over the period. It is located near the Taihang mountain range, which the environment ministry said is currently trapping emissions and channeling them towards Beijing. Claim: China extends pollution curbs ahead of National Day celebrations.

Output: The heavy industrial city of Xuzhou in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu will shut local factories on Thursday as part of efforts to reduce smog ahead of the country’s National Day celebrations next week, the local government said.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "There are no financial costs associated with fasting one day per month. The article generally presents data well: While at the top it uses the phrase ""40 percent less likely to be diagnosed with heart disease,"" later in the text it explains that 67 percent of the non-fasters were diagnosed, compard to 59 percent of fasters. Providing both measures is useful. The article also lays out the study’s methodology in considerable detail. The article cites the two important safety issues regarding fasting: That it can be dangerous for diabetics, and that it can depress metabolism and possibly make weight gain more likely. It should also have said that anyone who wants to fast should consult their doctor first. While the article reports that the study was presented at an American Heart Association meeting, it did not explain that this means the data has not been peer-reviewed or published – and as such carries less credibility until (or if) it is published in such a journal. The article also failed to point out an observational study of self-reported behavior is a less powerful type of evidence than a prospective clinical trial. The risk in this study of ""Healthy user bias"" – the fact that people who choose to fast may have healthy characteristics that others do not – should have been emphasized. The article also permits the researchers to overinterpret some data. It quotes the researchers as saying the results apply to non-Mormons too. But only 8 percent of the survey group of 515 – or 41 people – were not Mormons. Conclusions of disease prevalence based on such a small sample size are premature. The article does not exaggerate the consequences or prevalence of heart disease. This article was based on a presentation at a medical meeting. It included interviews from two sources: The study’s author, and an independent expert on the subject of diet and heart disease. The article states that quitting smoking also reduces heart disease risk. But it fails to indicate that a more common approach to reducing heart risk is controlling what and how much you eat rather than when. It would have been useful to know how much benefit this group of fasters saw compared to a similar group that used more common dietary measures to reduce heart risk. The article also fails to mention other common and effective ways to reduce heart risk, such as controlling high blood pressure and lipids, taking aspirin, etc. The activity studied, refraining from food and drink one day per month, is available to anyone. The article correctly implies that little research has been done on the cardiac benefits of once-a-month daily fasting. There is no evidence the article is based on a press release." Claim: Study: Monthly fasting may help heart


Output: "This report on findings about heart disease in a mostly Mormon population of once-a-month fasters is solidly done. It presents data fairly and quotes one independent source. It also includes the essential caveats that the study is ""far from proof"" that fasting cuts heart disease risk, that monthly fasting may be a marker for personal self-discipline generally, and that fasting doesn’t necessarily lead to weight loss. The article’s major shortcoming is that it is based on a fairly low quality of data source subject to bias–an unpublished presentation of information gathered from self-reports of healthy people about lifestyle behaviors linked to their religious beliefs. The question here is not with the reporter’s execution of the story, but whether it should have been published at all. Despite its prominent acknowledgment of caveats, the story’s length and very existence invite the inference that fasting is an effective method to reduce heart disease risk. The researchers themselves admit their study can in no way responsibly answer that question–that their study at best raises questions that may justify further study. When making assignments, editors would be wise to ask the questions:   Will this report invite an inference about a recommended change in personal health behavior? If so, does the data justify this inference? In this case, the answer to the former is yes. The answer to the latter is no. Viewed from this perspective, an argument can be made that the story should not have been published. (An abstract of the presentation appears as a meeting supplement to the journal Circulation.)"