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: "President Barack Obama drew harsh criticism for comparing the terrorist group Islamic State to a ""JV team"" — and then again for claiming that’s not what he said (PolitiFact rated that statement False). On Sunday, another one of his characterizations of the situation in the Middle East came under fire as the political talk shows debated his plan for dealing with instability there. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden was asked about Obama’s decision to arm local rebel groups in Syria to help fight the Islamic State there. He wondered why Obama was suddenly interested in arming opposition forces there. ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on,"" Hayden said. ""We've turned on the dime in terms of our expectation for them, so if we're going to get them to this force that he said it was fantasy to rely on to the force that's going to be, as (White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough) said, the anvil in a combined arms operation, they're going to need an awful lot of help."" In this case, we're checking whether Obama described the Syrian rebels as ""pharmacists and doctors."" We're not checking whether the rebels actually are pharmacists or doctors, as we'll explain in a bit. We tried to reach Hayden but were unsuccessful. McDonough, though, was asked about Obama’s comment during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union. ""I think that the question that the president was responding to at the time was looking back a couple of years,"" McDonough said. ""We have had a relationship with these fighters now for a couple of years. They're getting better and more capable."" If that’s the case, then maybe Hayden was embellishing Obama’s comments. Keep in mind, the debate over arming the Syrian opposition forces in their fight against Syrian President Bashar al Assad has been ongoing for years. PolitiFact noted in a fact-check last week that several key members of Obama’s national security team favored the move in August 2012. Let’s take a look at exactly what Obama said. We found four instances of Obama describing the Syrian opposition forces in recent months. May 29 Obama discussed his foreign policy during an interview with NPR. He was asked if conditions were more ""robust"" for aiding the rebels than in the past. ""I wouldn't say the conditions are better,"" Obama said. ""In many ways, the conditions are worse. ""When you talk about the moderate opposition, many of these people were farmers or dentists or maybe some radio reporters who didn't have a lot of experience fighting,"" he added. ""But creating a capacity for them to hold ground, to be able to rebuff vicious attacks, for them to be able to also organize themselves in ways that are cohesive — all that takes, unfortunately, more time than I think many people would like."" For what it’s worth, the Washington Post fact-checked Obama’s claim about the makeup of Syrian rebels as farmer, dentists and radio reporters and found it to be dubious. June 19 In mid June, a few days before Obama asked Congress for $500 million to train and equip some of the Syrian opposition, he discussed the makeup of those forces on a couple occasions. In a June 19 press conference, a reporter asked Obama if ""the expansion of the Syria war into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we’re now willing to give the opposition there?"" Obama responded: ""The question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless. ""And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support,"" Obama said. ""Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize them. And that continues to be a challenge."" The next morning, he made a similar comment to CBS' This Morning. ""When you get farmers, dentists and folks who have never fought before going up against a ruthless opposition in Assad, the notion that they were in a position suddenly to overturn not only Assad but also ruthless, highly trained jihadists if we just sent a few arms is a fantasy."" Aug. 8 In a sitdown with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Obama again was asked about why he chose not to arm the Syrian rebels. ""This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,"" Obama said. Counter to what McDonough said Sept. 14, Obama very much seems to be talking about the Syrian opposition in the present and the challenges in providing them with assistance and arms. This continued up until August. The one caveat that Hayden does not mention is the conversation was largely in the context of the opposition’s capacity to go up against Assad and the Syrian regime, not their ability to fight a rogue terrorist organization like the Islamic State. Still, it is a noticeable about-face that as recently as August, Obama told Friedman he believed ""there’s not as much capacity as you would hope"" for providing these individuals training. Our ruling In discussing Obama’s decision to arm opposition forces in Syria, Hayden said, ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on."" We found several examples of Obama, as recently as June and August, characterizing the Syrian rebels as pharmacists and doctors, as well as dentists, radio reporters and teachers. Usually he was describing their capacity to fight Assad, but that doesn’t make Hayden’s point any less accurate." Claim: The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on.

Ex Output:
"In discussing Obama’s decision to arm opposition forces in Syria, Hayden said, ""The president referred to the Syrian opposition just a few months ago as pharmacists and doctors, and so on."" We found several examples of Obama, as recently as June and August, characterizing the Syrian rebels as pharmacists and doctors, as well as dentists, radio reporters and teachers. Usually he was describing their capacity to fight Assad, but that doesn’t make Hayden’s point any less accurate."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Rather than outline specific recommendations, the 300-page document is meant to be a resource for state regulators as they begin the process in 2020 of drafting formal rules aimed at reducing methane emissions. Despite industry claims that companies have been able to reduce emissions while still setting production records, environmentalists have been pushing hard for more regulations at the state level to target methane leaks and the practice of venting and flaring. The report is the result of numerous meetings over the last four months by the Methane Advisory Panel, a group of more than two dozen experts knowledgeable about various parts of the oil and gas business. The panel included industry representatives, environmental lawyers and experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Colorado State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The discussions centered on topics like compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic valves. New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the effort put into the report is unparalleled in its thoroughness. “This is exactly the baseline information we need to effectively tackle methane emissions in our state,” he said. The state will be accepting public comment on the report through Feb. 20. XTO Energy President Staale Gjervik said the company’s experience shows methane emissions can be mitigated in a cost-effective way but that full industry participation is important. XTO was among those represented on the panel. The report highlights various strategies to reduce emissions, such as switching to low- or no-bleed pneumatic controllers and increasing leak detection and monitoring equipment. The need for more infrastructure also was identified as a possible way to reduce venting and flaring — although the report stated flaring, or the burning off of excess natural gas during extraction, was a necessary part of the process. The state will host public meetings in the coming months to discuss the findings with community members across the state. Stronger regulations for methane emissions will be critical as the oil boom in New Mexico continues, said Hillary Hull of the Environmental Defense Fund, another member of the advisory panel. She said the state’s process in developing the analysis was been inclusive, representing countless hours of research and input from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. “Next year will be the critical time for moving forward on enforceable, nationally-leading methane rules that protect our air, address the climate crisis and improve education funding for New Mexico families and future generations,” she said. Earlier this month, trade groups representing the oil and gas industries in New Mexico and Texas release an analysis that showed a decline in methane emissions in both states as production tripled. The research also showed that the amount of methane burned off or emitted per barrel of oil equivalent was reduced by 64 percent in the Permian Basin during the past seven years. Meanwhile, the report cited a 210% increase in oil production in the Permian since 2011. Ryan Flynn, executive director at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association said Permian producers are leading the industry when it comes to environmental practices and emissions reductions. “As energy markets across the globe look to America for their energy needs, we are creating the solutions of the future to deliver cleaner, more reliable energy to people and communities in every corner of the planet,” he said in a statement. Claim: New Mexico releases methane emissions report.

Ex Output:
An advisory panel has released a technical report that covers how emissions are produced by oil and natural gas development and how New Mexico might be able to curb pollution from the industry.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "During a recent appearance on The Daily Show, guest host John Oliver and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., engaged in a lively exchange on health insurance. One of the issues they discussed was the high cost of health insurance. Paul, an eye surgeon, is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care law. During the interview, Oliver pressed him on how to get more Americans signed up for insurance. Paul told Oliver that according to the most recent statistics,  ""85 percent of people had insurance, so 15 percent didn't. So what you need to do is look at who are the 15 percent, and why don't they have insurance? Of the 15 percent who didn't have insurance, half of them made more than $50,000 a year. Why didn't they buy insurance? Because of the expense. They were young healthy people."" In this fact-check, we’ll check whether the cost of insurance is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans. In a separate report, we’ll look at his claim that half of the uninsured made more than $50,000 a year. Survey data consistently shows that cost is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans obtaining coverage. When the Kaiser Family Foundation’s June 2013 health tracking poll asked uninsured respondents for the main reason they didn’t have health insurance, a plurality of 40 percent cited cost. The second-biggest factor, at 26 percent, was related to employment, such as being unemployed or having a job that doesn’t offer health insurance. These two reasons aren’t mutually exclusive -- someone could have told the pollster that their lack of a job was the biggest reason but also find cost to be a barrier to obtaining insurance. The only answer in the poll that suggests the respondent doesn’t face a cost obstacle is ""doesn’t need insurance,"" which was the answer of only 11 percent. In another survey, the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers asked, ""Which of these are reasons you stopped being covered or don’t have health insurance?’’ Respondents were allowed to choose more than one reason. In this survey, too, a plurality -- 42 percent -- cited cost. Three other reasons cited are compatible with cost being an obstacle -- a lost job or a change in employment (26 percent), an employer that didn’t offer insurance (11 percent) and ineligible due to age or leaving school (9 percent). Just 6 percent cited ""other,"" which included ""didn’t want or need coverage,"" among other answers. ""The cost of insurance is a major reason why people are uninsured -- Sen. Paul is right about that,"" said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ""People without access to employer-sponsored coverage have a hard time affording it on their own, and that accounts for most of the uninsured."" Our ruling Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice." Claim: Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense.

Ex Output:

"Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."