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 documents were filed in support of Trever Dalton’s request for treatment in a mental health diversion program rather than criminal prosecution for the Dec. 5, 2017 shooting, the Ventura County Star reported Thursday. Dalton, who resigned from the CHP last year, has pleaded not guilty to several charges including assault with a firearm. The victim, Sorin Popescu, testified at a 2018 preliminary hearing that Dalton appeared to be drunk and threw an empty can of beer at him during a confrontation in their Ventura neighborhood. Dalton went home but a short time later Popescu was struck in the back by a single bullet. Another neighbor testified he saw Dalton with a gun before the shooting. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Nancy Ayers has yet to rule on Dalton’s application, a request that Popescu opposes, the newspaper said. Dalton claims years of witnessing horrific scenes in his duties as a peace officer coupled with substance abuse influenced his conduct the night of the shooting, records show. Claim: Ex-officer accused of shooting neighbor claims PTSD.
[EX A]: A former California Highway Patrol officer claims he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder when he allegedly shot his neighbor during an off-duty dispute two years ago, according to court documents.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: When President Pierre Nkurunziza hands over power, it could be the first truly peaceful transfer of authority in the East African nation since independence in 1962. But the coronavirus poses a threat to the May 20 vote. Burundi has kicked out World Health Organization workers after concerns were raised. The WHO Africa director messaged the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief about political rallies the day that Burundi’s campaigning launched and images of crowds circulated online. Authorities have been accused by critics of downplaying the pandemic and citing divine protection. But the government appears to be using virus measures to limit election observers, warning the East African regional bloc on May 8 that arriving foreigners face a 14-day quarantine. More than the virus, however, it’s the fear of violence that weighs on many of the more than 5 million people eligible to vote. Government agents have been accused of harassing the main opposition party, the CNL, whose leader Agathon Rwasa is believed to be in a close race with Nkurunziza’s chosen successor in the ruling CNDD-FDD, Evariste Ndayishimiye. More than 145 CNL members have been arrested since campaigning began on April 27, according to SOS Medias Burundi, a group of independent journalists. Police spokesman Pierre Nkurikiye has accused Rwasa of making “incendiary and defamatory” remarks and inciting revolt. Rwasa, the deputy parliament speaker, has drawn large crowds despite the risks of openly supporting him, according to an online group of activists known as i-Burundi. The group worries that a rigged election could spark the kind of street demonstrations that marked the previous vote in 2015. “The ruling party was hoping to use this post-Nkurunziza election to gain a semblance of legitimacy, but given what’s happening we might end up with more violence,” i-Burundi said in an interview. “People want change. ... But the ruling party has the incumbent advantage and controls the electoral process.” Rwasa told The Associated Press he feels it’s important not to boycott the election even if the outcome is not expected to be fair. “Everything has its right time,” he said. “Right now, it is not the time to give up and abandon our people.” Ndayishimiye, a retired general, would be a weak president because he will be a front for Nkurunziza and other powerful ruling party members, said David Gakunzi, a Burundian political analyst: “He consults but he will fear to take independent decisions.” Ndayishimiye fought alongside Nkurunziza as a rebel in the civil war from 1993 to 2005 that killed about 300,000 people. Nkurunziza was chosen by lawmakers to be president during the peace process known as the Arusha Accords, which specified that a president’s term can be renewed only once. But Nkurunziza, who won a second term in 2010, said he was eligible for a third term in 2015 because he had not been chosen the first time by universal suffrage. The deadly turmoil that followed badly damaged ties with the international community, and Burundi became the first country to leave the International Criminal Court after it started investigating allegations of abuses. The U.N. human rights office reported more than 300 extrajudicial killings and was kicked out of the country. Nkurunziza survived a coup attempt shortly after the 2015 vote while traveling in Tanzania and has left Burundi only once since then. Meanwhile international donors have cut support, leaving the government struggling. It has ordered citizens to pay for the upcoming vote. Many Burundians were surprised when the president announced in 2018 that he was serving his last term. Skepticism persists. The government has approved legislation that bestows upon Nkurunziza the title of “paramount leader” after he steps down. “It’s hard to know what’s going to happen ... Nkurunziza has a track record of being quite unpredictable,” said researcher Lane Hartill of the Burundi Human Rights Initiative. “Both the ruling party and the main opposition party, the CNL, are convinced their candidates are going to win the presidential election. It’s telling, though, that government officials continue to arrest large numbers of CNL members.” Even some senior members of the ruling party are tired of rights violations and the cratering economy but are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or being killed, Hartill said. Burundi’s government has denied allegations it targets its people, calling them malicious propaganda by dissidents. Memories of the 2015 violence are still raw. Jean Baptiste Bakunzi said he remains traumatized by his brother’s death at the hands of the police and the Imbonerakure, a militarized youth group associated with the ruling party. His brother, accused of participating in anti-government activities, “knelt down and begged them to save his life,” Bakunzi said. “Instead, one policeman pulled the trigger and shot him dead,” he said. “Whoever opposes the ruling party becomes an enemy even today.” The violence has dimmed hopes for those outside Burundi who will not be able to vote. Over 330,000 refugees are sheltering in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Congo, according to U.N. figures. “These elections will not bring hope for us because we have lost so much,” said Solange Teta, a refugee in Rwanda. “The ruling party candidate cannot alleviate our suffering.” Sporadic violence persists. Police said two people were killed and eight wounded in a grenade attack Sunday on a bar in Bujumbura that’s a popular hangout for ruling party supporters. Opposition supporters worry the security services may retaliate. Charles Nditije, a former government minister who lives in exile, described the election as a “joke,” calling the polls a formality aimed at installing Nkurunziza’s chosen successor. “What Burundians want now is anything that can bring to (an) end the reign of CNDD-FDD. But the ruling (party) candidate will fight tooth and nail to win fraudulently and set another round of crisis,” he said. Hartill, the Burundi researcher, said disputed election results could put the country back on edge. The big question, he said, is whether the opposition leader will “say enough is enough.” ___ Ssuuna reported from Kigali, Rwanda. Eloge Willy Kaneza in Nairobi, Kenya, contributed. Claim: Burundi defies COVID-19 for election ending a bloody rule.
[EX A]: Burundi is pushing ahead with an election on Wednesday that will end the president’s divisive and bloody 15-year rule.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here. Claim: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer
[EX A]:
This release summarizes an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute which reports that healthy lifestyle habits, including regular vigorous exercise, are associated with reduced risk of death from prostate cancer. The release does a fine job of describing a complex study that actually analyzed two studies and came up with a common scoring system, but could have explained the study limitations and articulated the benefits more clearly for readers. It also overstated the strength of the evidence by suggesting that these habits “save lives” — this study wasn’t capable of demonstrating that. Prostate cancer is costly — in both lives and money. It is the most common cancer in U.S. men, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2012, more than 177,000 men in the U.S. were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 27,244 died from the disease. In 2006, it was estimated to cost the U.S. more than $9.86 billion. New information that can shed light on how lifestyle choices may limit deaths related to prostate cancer is both welcome and newsworthy. However, with so many people potentially affected (and likely to be affected), it is important to explain the benefits of those lifestyle choices in language that will be easily understood.