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 Q]: Paragraph: The headquarters of the Tablighi Jamaat group in a cramped corner of Delhi were sealed and thousands of followers, including some from Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, were taken into quarantine after it emerged they had attended meetings there in mid-March. Police initially filed a case against Muhammad Saad Kandhalvi, the chief of the centre, for violating a ban on big gatherings but had now invoked the law against culpable homicide, a police spokesman said. “Delhi police had filed a first information report earlier against the Tablighi chief, now section 304 has been added,” the officer said, referring to culpable homicide in the penal code, which carries a maximum punishment of a 10-year prison term. A spokesman for the Tablighi Jamaat group, Mujeeb-ur Rehman, declined to comment saying they had not confirmed reports about the new charges. The Tablighi is one of the world’s biggest Sunni Muslim proselytising organisations with followers in more than 80 countries, promoting a pure form of Islam. Authorities said at the beginning of the month that a third of the nearly 3,000 coronavirus cases at that time were either people who attended the Tablighi gathering or those who were later exposed to them. India’s tally of coronavirus infections has since jumped to 12,380, including 414 deaths, as of Thursday. In the coronavirus hot spot of Delhi, 1,080 of its 1,561 cases were linked to the group’s gathering, according to the city government data on Wednesday. The Tablighi administrators earlier said many of the followers who had visited its offices in a narrow, winding lane in Delhi’s historic Nizamuddin quarter were stranded after the government declared a three-week lockdown, and the centre had to offer them shelter. Critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government have cautioned against fanning communal tension by laying the blame for the spread of the coronavirus on the Muslim group. Officials have rejected suggestions they were unfairly targeting the Muslim community, but said they had to rebuke the group because it had behaved irresponsibly by ignoring social-distancing rules. The Tablighi was also linked to a surge of cases in neighbouring Pakistan where it cancelled a similar gathering, but only at the last minute when thousands had already arrived at a premises in the city of Lahore. A gathering organised by the group in Malaysia also led to a surge of cases there and in several other Southeast Asian countries. Pakistan has recorded 6,505 cases according to its latest data, a jump of 520 over the previous day. About 60 percent of Pakistan’s cases load was linked to the Tablighi or were people who had gone on religious pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia and Iran, officials said. Here are official government figures on the spread of the coronavirus in South Asia:  * India has 12,380 confirmed cases, including 414 deaths  * Pakistan has 5,988 cases, including 107 deaths  * Bangladesh has 803 cases, including 39 deaths  * Afghanistan has 784 cases, including 29 deaths  * Sri Lanka has 238 cases, including 7 deaths  * Maldives has 21 cases and no deaths  * Nepal has 16 cases and no deaths  * Bhutan has five cases and no deaths  For an interactive graphic on global spread of coronavirus click : here Claim: India charges Muslim leader with culpable homicide for coronavirus surge.
[EX A]: India has brought charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against the chief of a Muslim seminary for holding a gathering last month that authorities say led to a big jump in coronavirus infections, police said on Thursday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The Idaho State Journal reports that last year there were nearly 6,600 STD cases, including HIV, up from fewer than 6,300 in 2016. Cases are also up nationally, with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcing last week that nearly 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were diagnosed in the United States in 2017. Kimberly Matulonis-Edgar of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare says experts in the state and across the country are struggling to understand what’s driving the increase. The most prevalent STDs reported nationally and in Idaho are gonorrhea and chlamydia. State health officials say that the rate of reported gonorrhea cases in Southeast Idaho fell about 14 percent from a year ago, but jumped more than 200 percent in south-central Idaho. ___ Information from: Idaho State Journal, http://www.journalnet.com Claim: Health experts alarmed by jump in STDs in Idaho.
[EX A]: A jump in reports of sexually transmitted diseases in Idaho has health experts worried.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Because the treatment is experimental and not on the market, there is no cost of treatment to report. The article fails to describe the nature or size of the symptomatic relief the drug trial showed. The article indicates that serious side effects were not observed in this small, early study of the drug. It mentions in the second paragraph that there may be side effects that were not revealed in this report. The article makes clear that the reported studies are early-phase and insufficient to prove efficacy and safety. The article does nothing to exaggerate the nature or severity of the disease. The author summarizes the results of a study that appeared in a high-quality, peer-reviewed journal, and quotes one knowledgable observer with no ties to the company developing the drug or the current study. The editor did a good job by retaining this information. The article makes clear that there are other drug treatments for schizophrenia whose effectiveness is limited by serious side effects. The article makes clear by the second paragraph that the treatment is still being tested and is at least three or four years from approval under the best circumstances. The article accurately states that the treatment is novel, and could potentially open the way to a new class of drug therapies. This article is an edited version of an article that appeared in the New York Times on the same day. Claim: Schizophrenia drug shows promise in trial
[EX A]:
"This article, a considerably shortened version of a feature story that appeared in the New York Times, adequately describes the findings of an early study by Eli Lilly on a new drug treatment for schizophrenia. Although quite short, the Sentinel brief manages to indicate the drug’s potential significance while retaining important caveats. The article would have been stronger if it had described the amount and nature of the relief the drug provided, and how that compared to existing treatments. One additional small but significant error: The Sentinel version states the study appeared in the journal Nature. It appeared in Nature Medicine. The Sentinel article does raise questions about whether findings from an early and tentative study should be published in such a short form. The original Times piece is an excellent feature which explores the mechanism by which the new drug appears to work, the troubled history of another Eli Lilly drug for schizophrenia, the amount of money at stake in finding a novel treatment, and the story of this drug’s development. The Nature Medicine publication provided the news hook for that larger piece. But absent that larger piece, are the findings of the early study significant enough to justify a brief stand-alone report? It is worth considering whether the Sentinel’s readers would be better served by a brief article about a treatment or phenomenon that’s either currently available or about to hit the market. The shorter Sentinel story would have been strengthened by a caution about the proportion of ""promising/breakthrough"" treatments that make it from this stage of drug discovery to market availability. Is this drug as good in improving patients as current treaments? How big was the difference in adverse effects? How long was the trial – long enough to see adverse effects emerge? These details are lacking in the story."