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: Hyperemesis gravidarum is estimated to affect about one to three percent of pregnant women and can result in nausea and vomiting so acute that hospitalization is required. It is thought to be caused by pregnancy hormones, but doctors aren’t sure why some women experience worse symptoms than others. The condition usually begins in the early weeks of pregnancy and in many cases, subsides by about 20 weeks. But for some women, the effects may persist until the baby is born. The condition can be “absolutely devastating,” said Dr. Roger Gadsby of Warwick University, who has studied the issue for decades. “Your life is on hold while the symptoms are present,” he said, noting that some pregnant women may vomit dozens of times per day and be restricted to bed rest. Kensington Palace made the pregnancy announcement Monday, saying the duchess was not feeling well enough to attend an official engagement later in the day. Kate is being cared for at her Kensington Palace home in London. There was no word of when the baby is due. She and Prince William already have two children: Prince George, 4 and Princess Charlotte, 2. In 2012, Kate was hospitalized for several days when she was believed to be suffering from dehydration. There is no evidence that the nausea and vomiting from severe morning sickness will affect the baby’s future health. Women with the condition actually have a slightly lower risk of miscarriage, according to Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In severe cases, however, babies can be born with lower than expected birthweight. Women with the condition are advised to eat small meals often, to avoid any foods or smells that trigger symptoms and to consult their midwife or doctor if their symptoms do not subside. If treatment requires hospitalization, women are typically given vitamins, steroids and anti-nausea drugs intravenously. Patients are also sometimes treated with shots of heparin, to thin their blood: pregnant women are at increased risk of developing blood clots in their legs, and being dehydrated further elevates the risk. Gadsby said he would expect doctors to be able to treat the duchess at Kensington Palace and that there shouldn’t be any lasting effects. She would likely have to cut back on her royal schedule, though. “As long as the mom receives adequate treatment, the mom is usually fine and the baby is fine,” he said. ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Science Says: Kate’s morning sickness brutal, not dangerous.

Output: Prince William and his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, are expecting their third child. And for the third time — as with her previous two pregnancies — the former Kate Middleton is suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum, or severe morning sickness.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The three western U.S. cities top the list of the 100 best towns for men in a new ranking compiled by Men’s Health magazine, while Charleston, West Virginia, Philadelphia and Birmingham, Alabama are considered the worst. “Anytime we do a best and worst city ranking and a city comes in at the very top like this, it immediately says to us they were consistently strong across the board in pretty much all of the 38 criteria that we looked at,” Men’s Health Executive Editor Matt Marion said. Boise, which jumped from fifth place last year, scored high marks for the physical and mental health of its residents, its low crime rate and short commuting times - an average of just 18 minutes. “Boise finishing number one was interesting to us because it is a city that would have finished in the top 20, but to come in right at the top is impressive,” Marion said. San Francisco, which consistently ranks high in the annual list, impressed with its small percentage of obese people, low number of smokers and highly educated and generally fit population. San Jose had very low death rates from cancer and heart disease, the lowest percentage of smokers in any of the 100 cities in the ranking, and not much crime. Plano, in Texas and Seattle rounded out the top five, followed by Burlington, Vermont, which dropped from the top spot last year. At the opposite end of the list, high cancer rates, violent crime and poor fitness levels assured Birmingham last place. In addition to Philadelphia and Charleston, West Virginia, the bottom five included Toledo, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri. New York ranked 33rd and Los Angeles was in the middle of the ranking. The magazine compiled the list, now in its 12th year, by ranking the cities on criteria ranging from the cost of living, number of jobless, obesity, crime and death rates, to air quality and the ratio of men to women. It used data from various sources including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the National Center for Health Statistics, state cancer registries and federal crime statistics. “The things that we do focus on ultimately are the ones that will make a difference in terms of whether or not you will be happy and healthy,” Marion said. The full list can be found here Claim: Idaho, California cities deemed best in U.S. for men.

Output: U.S. men looking for the best place to find happiness, health and a good quality of life might consider heading to Boise, Idaho, or San Jose and San Francisco in northern California.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Some Republicans have presented the embattled Clinton Foundation as serving one purpose: ""lining the pockets of Bill and Hillary Clinton,"" as GOP Chair Reince Priebus put it. Responding to such criticisms, Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen said the Clintons ""take no personal benefit"" from the foundation. She also pointed out the legitimate charitable work the foundation carries out, such as its programs addressing AIDS in Africa and storm recovery in Haiti. ""The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it,"" Rosen said on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show Aug. 24. That’s a pretty wide gulf between the assertion that the foundation is just a front for the Clintons to make oodles of money and claims that they don’t get any personal benefit. It made us wonder: What exactly do the Clintons get out of the foundation? Bill Clinton is currently a member of the foundation’s board of directors, while Chelsea Clinton is vice chair. Hillary Clinton was a board member between leaving the State Department in 2013 through the launch of her presidential campaign in 2015. In the most recent year for which tax forms are available, 2014, the foundation reported that Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours per week for the foundation and other related organizations, Bill Clinton worked 25 hours per work, and Hillary Clinton worked 20 hours per week. The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit. Other Clinton Foundation leaders take home six-figure salaries, according to tax documents. The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead. (A quick aside: There’s some confusion over how much the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable programming primarily because the word ""foundation"" is in the name. Typically, a private foundation’s primary activity is grantmaking, giving money to charities who actually do the work. But the Clinton Foundation operates as a public charity in that they run many of their programs themselves. The Clintons also have a traditional private foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation.) So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits. This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption. Still, it’s worth reviewing the limited types of benefits that the Clintons do get. Public relations The most obvious, outward-facing benefit for the Clintons is notoriety and media attention. The organization got off the ground in 2001, the year Bill Clinton left the White House. During the periods when he or Hillary were not in or running for office, the foundation kept the family in the public eye — and more often for good reasons, rather than scandalous ones (at least up until the past year or so, when Clinton launched her 2016 campaign and the foundation faced more intense scrutiny). Throughout its existence, the Clinton Foundation has received attention for its work to make AIDS medication more accessible in Africa, efforts to combat climate change, establishing a business mentoring program, writing school food guidelines, and more. Every fall, Bill Clinton and his family receive a spate of press as the stars of the annual Clinton Global Initiative, a networking conference for wealthy philanthropic donors. Chelsea Clinton has embraced her role as a public face of the organization. ""It does continue to draw attention to the work they do as family and individuals throughout the world,"" said Ann Skeet, director of leadership ethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. ""At a minimum, it is good public relations."" When the Internal Revenue Service evaluates charities applying for tax-exempt status, which the foundation has, it wants to ensure that the organization is set up to provide a public benefit rather than serve private financial desires, Skeet said. There’s nothing improper about the Clintons taking advantage of their public image in this role, as long as it goes toward that public benefit. Another big benefit: The Clintons’ role as high-dollar fundraisers for the foundation also enabled them to maintain relationships with wealthy and powerful individuals, including many who are also involved in the Democratic Party. There are some crossover big money donors, such as Fred Eychaner, Haim Saban and Daniel Abraham. (Republicans have been involved in the foundation, too; Mitt Romney spoke at the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative amid his run for the White House.) The Clintons have also received some indirect monetary benefits from their charitable work, though none of this money came from the foundation’s coffers. Bill Clinton wrote a book in 2007 called Giving, for which he received an advance of about $5 million, according to the New York Times. The book was about charitable work and so is, in part, based on his work with the Clinton Foundation. Similarly, he has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars delivering numerous speeches where he talks about his Clinton Foundation work. For example, Samsung Electronics paid Bill Clinton $450,000 to deliver the keynote address at the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show, during which he talked about how technology has affected his work in the developing world through the Clinton Foundation. Samsung has also donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation. Experts also pointed out that the Clintons have donated to their own charity, and those donations would be tax-deductible. Bill and Hillary Clinton have donated millions to their private philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation, which has in turn given between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton herself has donated between $25,000 and $50,000. And foundation tax documents stipulate that the Clintons, ""due to extraordinary security and other requirements,"" often need to travel first class or via charter plane. A spokesperson said that in some cases, when the Clintons travel on foundation business, the foundation pays for their travel service directly. At least one campaign ad has been made lampooning Hillary Clinton’s travel on private jets. Chicken or the egg? This discussion raises a chicken-or-the-egg question: Do these benefits the Clintons receive really come from the foundation, or do they come from their already sizeable political capital? Before the Clintons started their foundation, they were famous for being the country’s first family. Absent the foundation, it’s quite possible they could command equally sizeable speaking fees and book advances. They would have access to the same members of the global elite. They would have the ability and finances to donate to charitable causes. Buildings would bear their names. Hillary Clinton would still receive hefty donations supporting her presidential campaign. In all likelihood, very little would change in the Clintons’ private lives if the foundation were to close, said Tony Proscio, a researcher at Duke University’s Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society and a consultant to foundations and large nonprofit organizations. ""It’s fair to wonder how much of a ‘benefit’ these things would be to Bill and Hillary Clinton, who are already at home in high society, more famous than almost anyone, and probably welcome to associate themselves with whatever good deeds they please,"" Proscio said. ""Are those ‘benefits’ as valuable to the Clintons as they would be to someone else? It’s debatable."" On the flip side, he said the foundation likely would not be as successful nor as widely known if it didn’t have the Clintons’ name attached. He noted however, ""There’s a glamour attached not only to the foundation but to the Clintons' participation in the foundation that seems a little self-serving."" The reason people start charities in their name and donate significant amounts of money often boils down to a desire to feel like they’re contributing to a cause they care about or to increase their standing in the community, Skeet said. These are, however abstract, a form of personal benefit. ""All donors to all organizations give for a reason you can tie back to personal benefit,"" she said. Our ruling Rosen said, ""The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it."" Rosen’s claim is correct on its face. The Clintons do not take any sort of paycheck, bonus or fees from the Clinton Foundation. It is possible the foundation has boosted the Clintons’ public image since Bill Clinton left office, and this has helped them command hefty speaker fees and book advances, and it’s also given them extra opportunities to mingle with the global elite. But they may have gotten these benefits even without the Clinton Foundation. Their celebrity primarily comes from their track record in politics." Claim: The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it.


Output: "Rosen said, ""The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it."" Rosen’s claim is correct on its face. The Clintons do not take any sort of paycheck, bonus or fees from the Clinton Foundation. It is possible the foundation has boosted the Clintons’ public image since Bill Clinton left office, and this has helped them command hefty speaker fees and book advances, and it’s also given them extra opportunities to mingle with the global elite. But they may have gotten these benefits even without the Clinton Foundation. Their celebrity primarily comes from their track record in politics."