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.

Example Input: Paragraph: "A University of Texas English professor says a law enabling Texans with state permits to carry concealed guns into classrooms has already caused prospective faculty, students and even speakers not to come to the Austin campus. Lisa Moore said in an NPR interview aired Aug. 7, 2016, six days after the campus-carry mandate took effect: ""We already have concrete examples of faculty who have declined to apply for jobs here at the university or who, once offered jobs, have turned them down when they realized that this policy would go into effect, students changing their minds about coming to our graduate and undergraduate programs, and invited speakers declining to come when they realized that we couldn't guarantee that they would give their talk in a gun-free space."" ""Concrete examples"" is definitive. So, how about details? First it’s worth noting that since 1995, Texas law has allowed any individual with a concealed handgun permit to carry a gun on public college and university sidewalks, streets, parking areas and other grounds. In 2015, state lawmakers widened the law by voting to let permit holders also carry guns in campus buildings, except in areas excluded under rules adopted by each school’s president. UT-Austin President Gregory L. Fenves has written that he doesn’t believe handguns belong in campus buildings; still, he agreed to allow them in classrooms because, he said, barring them would have the effect of generally excluding guns from campus, which the law prohibits. In February 2016, Fenves also wrote Bill McRaven, the UT System chancellor: ""Since this is a new law with an unknown effect on UT Austin, we will monitor implementation and its impact on students, faculty members, and staffers. I have significant concerns about how the law will affect our ability to recruit and retain faculty members and students. Fenves is among state defendants, too, in a lawsuit filed by Moore and two fellow professors seeking to bar civilian handguns from campus. On Aug. 22, 2016, a federal judge denied their request for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed them to ban concealed handguns from their classrooms. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said he found no precedent for the argument that professors have a right of academic freedom under the First Amendment so broad that it overrides decisions of the Legislature and the university that employs them. Moore, Jennifer Lynn Glass and Mia Carter were still free to pursue the merits of their case. But Yeakel’s ruling was a considerable setback for them, as they wanted to ban guns in time for the start of fall classes. Virginia professor declined UT visit Moore, asked for concrete examples, initially responded with an email reminding that an out-of-state candidate for a UT deanship said he bowed out of consideration in 2015 due to the gun law. A February 2016 Austin American-Statesman news blog post quoted Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia professor of media studies who’d previously earned UT bachelor’s and doctoral degrees, saying he’d been contacted by a search firm helping the university find a dean for the Moody College of Communication--and, the story said, was later told he was a finalist. But the gun law weighed on him; the story said that if chosen, Vaidhyanathan said, he’d have felt compelled to side with faculty members seeking to bar guns from classrooms. ""I would probably be fired immediately,"" he said. ""I told the search firm I was no longer interested in the position."" To our inquiry, Vaidhyanathan provided a December 2015 email he sent to search firm officials declining their invitation to return to the Texas campus for ""an extended visit and a dinner"" about the deanship that would have included meetings with Fenves and others. Vaidhyanathan’s email said the prospect of guns being allowed in classrooms meant he couldn’t ""pursue this position with enthusiasm."" Vaidhyanathan wrote: ""I could not, in good conscience, ask faculty and students to put themselves into an environment in which students, visitors, or even faculty could be armed. My wife is a scientist. I could not ask her to take a job at a university that was forbidden by law to restrict guns from classrooms. The very consideration of that possibility puts a chilling effect on open and relaxed discourse in the classroom. And the fact that the university cannot restrict guns on campus in general means that university police officers are forbidden to do their jobs effectively. They can’t diffuse a threatening situation until it becomes a dangerous one. ""Universities are tense enough already. And we all count on our university police forces to confront and (defuse) threatening situations as early as possible. The State of Texas has put every student and professor in Texas in danger. I applaud the chancellor, the president, the faculty, and the students for their strong opposition to campus carry."" So, that’s a candidate for dean confirmed. Next, we followed up with Moore about particular students, other prospective faculty and speakers deciding not to come to UT due to the gun law. A mother’s email Moore forwarded a November 2015 email sent by a parent, Rachel Zucker, to a UT mailbox. The message says: ""Dear UT, I want you to know that my son, Moses Goren, is a straight A student at Hunter College High School (in NYC) who has expressed interest in applying to your Plan II program at UT (Austin). He and I have decided, however, that he will not apply to any schools that have campus carry laws. We believe that guns should not be allowed on college campuses and that guns present a serious physical danger for faculty and students. If you were to make UT Austin a safer place by making it illegal to bring a gun on campus, I would eagerly and proudly have Moses apply to your esteemed school. Thank you, Rachel Zucker"" To our inquiry, Zucker confirmed her son’s decision. ""Both of us feel even clearer about this than we did when wrote that email. The rampant gun violence and lack of commonsense gun control in this country should be a source of unmitigated shame for our leaders and legislators,"" Zucker said by email, adding that she hopes UT bans guns on campus. Moore also noted the departures of two UT faculty members by 2016. In each instance -- Architecture Dean Frederick Steiner’s move to the University of Pennsylvania and economist Daniel Hamermesh’s shift to opportunities abroad -- news stories and emails we fielded from the men describe the gun law as a factor, though not the only factor, in the departures. Hamermesh urged us to consult Joan Neuberger, a UT history professor, who responded by emailing a prospective graduate student’s February 2016 email saying she would decline UT’s offer of admission ""due to my misgivings with the campus carry guidelines President Fenves released today."" Nora Dolliver went on: ""Although I think that UT would be a wonderful place to complete my graduate training, I am unwilling to study or work in an environment where my classmates, professors, students, or patrons are permitted to carry handguns."" Harvard professor’s decision A March 2016 news story in UT’s student newspaper, The Daily Texan, quoted Moore saying a Harvard University professor had withdrawn from a search for a faculty position in the UT Women and Gender Studies department because of the measure letting guns into classrooms. By phone, Moore told us the professor, Robin Bernstein, had been urged by Moore and others to apply in 2015, but Bernstein, citing the gun law, declared she wouldn’t. ""She definitely would have been a finalist,"" Moore said, adding that faculty were ultimately unable to fill the position. By email, Bernstein told us she was invited to apply for a professorship in women’s and gender studies but declined to do so ""in large part because of the changes in Texas law to allow guns in class."" Bernstein shared a portion of her November 2015 email to Moore about deciding not to apply. The email says Bernstein had been ""watching the madness with the Texas legislature"" and wasn’t more than 50 percent sure she’d accept the UT job if it were offered. Concerned outside speaker Moore, asked about speakers deciding not coming to campus, pointed us to Paloma Diaz, an administrator in UT’s Teresa Lozano Long Institute for Latin American Studies. Diaz said by phone that a speaker who teaches at the University of Washington cited the gun law in initially resisting the institute’s invitation to give a talk in fall 2016, though she said the speaker subsequently relented. Diaz said she didn’t have permission to identify the speaker. Otherwise, a web search showed the institute has posted a notice that Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, a UW professor, is expected to visit and give talks Sept. 26, 2016. Godoy didn't respond to our query. We couldn’t fairly consider a couple of late-breaking instances of invited speakers deciding not to come to UT because their decisions became public after Moore spoke to NPR. Still: --A Duke University professor, Karla Holloway, wrote Phillip Barrish, a UT English professor, that she was rescinding her acceptance of Barrish’s invitation to speak on the campus in fall 2016. Holloway wrote Aug. 26, 2016: ""I believe guns, and especially the vulnerabilities exposed in conceal carry cultures, contribute mightily to our nation’s public health crisis. And with the conceal carry now in full effect there, and after discussion with my family, I just cannot come."" To our inquiry, Holloway forwarded a copy of the emailed March 2016 invitation from Barrish that she and Barrish told us she’d previously accepted. --Neuberger separately alerted us to a Texas Christian University historian, Hanan Hammad, reversing course about speaking at UT, also while citing the gun law (which allows private universities like TCU to opt out of the mandate). To our inquiry, Hammad forwarded her Aug. 26, 2016, email rescinding her agreement to speak in October 2016. Hammad wrote that ""with campus carry now in full effect at UT, I just cannot come. I'm always proud to be a UT alumnus and I owe my mentors and teachers great deal, but I'm in full solidarity with all UT faculty, staff, and students whose health and lives are in danger due to campus carry. I believe open or conceal carry on campus is wrong and dangerous."" UT administration suggests claim solid We also asked a university spokesman, Gary Susswein, about the accuracy of Moore’s claim. Susswein responded by emailing a web link to an August 2016 statement by sociologist Harry Edwards, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, in which Edwards said that due to implementation of the gun law, he was rescinding his permission to present UT lectures on sport and society, launched in 2014, in his name. ""My decision was an exceedingly difficult one,"" Edwards wrote, ""but silence is evil's greatest and most consistently dependable ally."" Another campus spokesman, J.B. Bird, said by email the administration could confirm Moore’s claim. Bird didn’t identify resistant individuals by name though he wrote that the university provost’s office ""confirmed hearing of a few people who decided not to interview and who stated that it was because of campus carry. Similarly, Bird said, provost officials say ""they have heard of a few cases of faculty speakers who have decided not to come to campus to give talks because of the law."" Bird said too that ""we know of students changing their minds about coming based on campus carry. Our admissions office said when the law was announced they received about 10 calls and 10-15 emails with applicants saying that they were not coming or would not apply. We assume that we don’t hear from 100 percent of the people who make this decision. ""That said,"" Bird wrote, ""we did just admit the largest incoming freshmen class in UT’s history, with about 8,500 freshman. From what we have seen, though, the assertion is  that some individuals have chosen not to come because of the new state law."" Our ruling Moore told NPR there are ""concrete examples"" of UT job applicants, prospective students and invited speakers deciding not to come to the university because of conceal-carry permit holders newly being allowed to bring handguns into campus buildings including classrooms. Not naming names, UT’s administration says this is so. We separately identified two out-of-state professors, a prospective graduate student and the mother of a high school student who cited the change in gun law and policy for not continuing to seek a UT position or not applying to come there--plus an outside speaker who reportedly resisted an invitation to speak on campus before relenting. – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Claim: "Lisa Moore Says there are ""concrete examples"" of University of Texas job applicants or prospective applicants and students as well as invited speakers changing their minds because of handguns being allowed in campus buildings and classrooms."
Example Output: "Moore told NPR there are ""concrete examples"" of UT job applicants, prospective students and invited speakers deciding not to come to the university because of conceal-carry permit holders newly being allowed to bring handguns into campus buildings including classrooms. Not naming names, UT’s administration says this is so. We separately identified two out-of-state professors, a prospective graduate student and the mother of a high school student who cited the change in gun law and policy for not continuing to seek a UT position or not applying to come there--plus an outside speaker who reportedly resisted an invitation to speak on campus before relenting."

Example Input: Paragraph: The story quotes one price estimate of about $250 for the testing. We would have liked more detail about whether new details on accuracy of the tests might change their status in the marketplace, or whether insurability status might change. Parents who fear their child may inherit gender-linked disorders, such as hemophilia, could use this test earlier in pregnancy and possibly avoid more invasive procedures, such as amniocentesis. Amniocentesis carries a risk of miscarriage. We would have liked some numbers about how many women in the US are facing this dilemma; the situations that carry benefit are few. The average gestational “age” at enrollment in prenatal care in the US is after the window in which most of these tests are marketed. So that means if a couple did not know that they needed to think about X-linked mental retardation “fragile X” (which affect males) or hemophilia, the use of the test would not really be integrated into their care. Could have been more skeptical of why they are really being marketed – closer to entertainment ultrasounds than medical care. Yes, the story lists potential harms. These range from inaccuracy, because the tests are unregulated and the laboratories don’t have to meet medical standards, to the potential for abortions based on fetal gender. This story does not evaluate the quality of the evidence in the new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which prompted the headlines. We applaud some of the details, giving consumers information about the lawsuit about one consumer product, but the discussion leaves readers confused about how to evaluate reliability. We’re surprised that the story didn’t point out in absolute terms that 5 of every 100 tests of girls and 1 of every 100 boys will be wrong – 6 out of a hundred multiplied by millions of pregnancies a year! That’s a lot of errors even if uptake is minimal. This story balances the potential for danger in giving parents early information about the sex of a fetus and the genuine benefit for some in avoiding more invasive testing when a condition is ruled out by knowing the gender information. The story quoted four sources, in addition to the study’s lead author. The story explains how parents who fear a sex-linked genetic problem for their fetus must balance risk against benefit in existing alternatives.It did not do a very detailed job of comparing how the new approach could compare, especially considering there is a risk of inaccurate results in the new approach. The hypothetical target group for these tests is much, much smaller than the broader use is and might become. It did do a better job than the Reuters story in describing other tests (urine tests) that have been developed. Yes, the story explains there are a variety of tests that have been widely available to consumers. But the story could have done a better job of connecting the dots for readers. Exactly how does one get a blood test done for a home test kit? Raises questions like: do I go to a lab? Finger stick? Are their costs other than the test? Shipping? Do I do this at home myself? Working with my medical care team? How soon do I get the results?, etc. Process of using several common kits could have been better described. The new research was on testing that is not novel, but by surveying 57 other studies, they reached a new conclusion about overall accuracy and how early in pregnancy it could predict gender. The story did not rely on a release. Claim: Test Can Tell Fetal Sex at 7 Weeks, Study Says
Example Output: The story outlines how new research about an existing family of consumer blood tests shows accuracy at seven weeks into pregnancy for determining the sex of a fetus. What the story also tells is the complicated weighing of risks and benefits that parents may need to use, since the consumer tests and their laboratories are not regulated by the FDA. We would have liked more information in here about which precise forms of testing among the 57 studies analyzed were most reliable and the quality of the evidence in the Journal of the American Medical Association survey. Earlier sex-determination in pregnancy could lead to parents choosing (or trying to choose) the gender they prefer. Internationally, it is already clear that some parents in China and India are deliberately choosing male babies, and aborting female fetuses. The research reported on, a survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association, does not directly address these larger ethical implications. But the study’s lead author, Diana Bianchi, does stress that she wants to examine “why people are buying these things” and the consequences of consumer access to over-the-counter testing for fetal gender. The New York Times story goes a bit further than the competing Reuters story in exploring how consumers may use the testing.

Example Input: Paragraph: The articles said that they were based on a spike in total mortality rates reported by officials in Moscow, who said the capital registered about 1,800 deaths more in April 2020 than the monthly average. The New York Times reported that total is far higher than the official COVID-19 death count of 642, which the newspaper said was an indication of significant underreporting by the authorities. It quoted Tatiana N. Mikhailova, a senior researcher at the Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in Moscow, as saying that the number who died from the virus is “possibly almost three times higher than the official toll.” The Financial Times pointed to a similar surge in deaths reported by authorities in St. Petersburg, and it concluded that nationwide, Russia could have 70% more coronavirus deaths than it reports. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova complained about what she called “disinformation” by the two newspapers and said letters demanding a retraction would be passed on to both on Thursday. Danielle Ha, vice president for communications for The New York Times, told Russian news agencies the report was accurate because it was based on data released by an official state agency. The Financial Times didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. Russia has reported over 250,000 coronavirus cases on Thursday and 2,305 deaths. The comparatively low death toll raised questions in the West, with some critics suggesting it could be much higher. The New York Times reported that Russia’s mortality rate of only about 13 deaths per million was far below the world average of 36. Russian health officials insisted that the relatively low coronavirus death toll is due to its instituting a quick ban on travel from neighboring China earlier this year, an early introduction of restrictions and tracing of the infected contacts. U.S. President Donald Trump has cited a similar travel ban for his efforts to combat the virus. Russian officials also have said the scope of testing has been significantly increased in recent weeks, allowing for officials to spot the infections quickly and prevent patients from developing life-threatening complications. Following the Foreign Ministry statement, lawmaker Vasily Piskaryov demanded that reporters from the newspapers be stripped of their accreditation, effectively banning them from working in the country. Zakharova said measures against the media organizations “will depend on whether they run the retraction.” Last month, Russian lawmakers approved fines of up to $25,000 and prison terms of up to five years for anyone who spreads what is deemed to be false information during the outbreak. Under the measure, media outlets could be fined up to $127,000 for disseminating disinformation about the virus. On Wednesday, Moscow’s health department rejected the allegations of undercounting coronavirus deaths. Officials said autopsies are being conducted in all suspected coronavirus deaths. “That’s why post-mortem diagnoses in Moscow and causes of death, in the end, are exceedingly accurate, and the mortality data absolutely transparent,” the statement said. More than 60% of deaths of people with coronavirus in Moscow were ascribed to other causes, such as cardiovascular ailments, cancer, diseases involving organ failures and other illnesses, according to the statement. Guidelines on reporting coronavirus deaths, issued by the World Health Organization in mid-April, state that “deaths due to COVID-19” should be considered as such “unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease.”  ___ Follow AP news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak Claim: Russia slams New York Times, Financial Times on virus deaths.
Example Output:
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has criticized the Financial Times and The New York Times after they reported that Russia’s coronavirus death toll could be much higher than government officials are saying.