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: Sweeping testing for the coronavirus among the entire crew of the Roosevelt has already yielded a curious result: The majority of the positive cases so far are among sailors who are asymptomatic. With so many of the crew symptom-free, it is unclear how many of them had been infected and recovered without anyone realizing they had contracted the virus. Many of these infections could have finished their cycle before testing of the crew began. The extent of the infections aboard the vessel should become more clear with results of the new “outbreak investigation” the Navy announced that will use serology testing developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The serology tests look for the presence of specific antibodies that are created by the immune system’s attack response to the presence of the virus and remain in the blood for a period of time. “We are seeking crew member volunteers,” Navy Surgeon General Rear Admiral Bruce Gillingham told reporters. The roughly thousand volunteers who are being sought for testing over the next week or so will also be swabbed again for COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the virus, as well as asked to answer a short survey, officials said. The U.S. coronavirus death toll - the highest in the world - surged past 35,000 on Friday. It also claimed the life of a sailor from the Theodore Roosevelt this week. The Navy’s testing of the entire 4,800-member crew of the aircraft carrier - which is about 94% complete - was an extraordinary move in a case that already has led to the firing of the ship’s captain and the resignation of the Navy’s top civilian official. It has also given scientific researchers a case study about how the virus spreads asymptomatically in a confined environment among mostly younger adults. That cohort has been somewhat underrepresented in the epidemiological data so far. As of Friday, some 660 sailors - nearly 14% of the crew - had tested positive for the coronavirus. The Navy has said that about 60% of those positive tests were among sailors who were symptom-free. The Navy said medical staff on the island of Guam, where the ship pulled into port, would take the samples and collect questionnaire results. The actual serology tests will be sent to the CDC in Atlanta for analysis. The data could further shed light on how the coronavirus spreads undetected, which could help inform the U.S. national response to the pandemic and efforts to restart the economy. “We will also be sharing that with the White House task force so that that information can be used for the benefit of the nation,” Gillingham said. Claim: U.S. to start antibody testing of sailors on coronavirus-hit aircraft carrier.
Example Output: The U.S. Navy said on Friday it will conduct antibody testing of sailors aboard the coronavirus-hit aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt to determine whether they were exposed to the virus as it spread through the ship.

Example Input: Paragraph: Mays, speaking to a TV critics’ meeting Friday, pointed to several bottles she had filled with her tap water and challenged the room to taste or even smell it. There were no immediate takers. The activist, who said the battle over water safety continues, is among the residents portrayed in Lifetime’s movie titled “Flint,” debuting Oct. 28. Mays is played by Marin Ireland, who co-stars with Betsy Brandt, Jill Scott and Queen Latifah. Executive producer Neil Meron said the film is intended to spotlight what happened in Flint, including how a united community and “the voice of the people” can force officials to act. Mays said there have been successes, including the outcome of a lawsuit to get half of the service lines replaced, although not the main lines or interior plumbing. “So one of the things we hope come out of this is to let people know it’s still not over. It’s not even close to over,” she said. The movie is intended to honor Flint victims by telling the story “that even in a poor, broken, poisoned town, we banded together, and we fought. We fought, and we win.” In 2014, a switch of Flint’s water source and failure to add corrosion-reducing phosphates allowed lead from old pipes to leach into the water. Elevated levels of lead, a neurotoxin, were detected in children, and 12 people died in a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that experts suspect was linked to the improperly treated water. An ongoing investigation has led to charges against 13 current or former government officials, including two managers who Republican Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to run the city. Last January, state officials said Flint’s water system no longer has lead levels exceeding the federal limit. The announcement was promptly met by skepticism from some residents, Mays among them, maintaining the system still contains lead and continues to cause illness. Brandt, the former “Breaking Bad” star who’s a native of Bay City, Michigan, not far from Flint, said the person she portrays, LeeAnne Walters, was among those driven to act when authorities failed to heed complaints about their children becoming ill. “As a mom, it just shakes you, because there’s some things that we just should be able to count on,” Brandt said. Claim: Lifetime movie ‘Flint’ dramatizes city’s water crisis.
Example Output: Melissa Mays, a resident of Flint, Michigan, came armed to discuss the city’s tainted water crisis and a new Lifetime TV movie dramatizing it.

Example Input: Paragraph: There’s no mention of how much this might cost, but we’ll rate this N/A since the story makes it clear that this is early research. The story did a good job of reporting the scope of the observed benefit, stating that 21% of patients “experienced a prolonged survival” and then breaking down that number with more specifics. For example, it reported that after three years, 21% the treated patients survived versus 4% of a historical control group. But in a small study, why not cite the actual numbers – how many out of how many? – rather than make readers do the math in their heads. The story reported “substantial risks” with the treatment, including “dangerous swelling in the brain that can lead to seizures and other complications.” It reported that one patient had a life-threatening blood clot in the brain that required surgery. The story did not explain how many of the patients in the trial experienced the substantial risks. This was something NBC News handled better (see the review). We can look the other way on the benefits criterion, but the story should have given some estimate of how many people experienced harm from the treatment. We applaud cautious framing in both the story and the headline. The lead refrained from overstating the evidence, saying the treatment “may help some patients.” That conservative tone continued in the second paragraph, which said it “seems to have extended survival in a small group of patients.” The story admonished that the research is “at a very early stage” and “much more follow-up” is needed, and also explained that the study’s use of a historical control group of patients “could produce misleading conclusions.” No disease-mongering here. The story said glioblastoma is the “most common and aggressive malignant brain tumor in adults.” The story did have an independent source, but did not mention that seven of the researchers on the study reported financial interests in the company that holds the license for the treatment. The story mentioned standard treatment without getting specifics, and also mentioned plans to combine this treatment with chemotherapy and other drugs. It could have also mentioned other studies that are attempting to find a cure for glioblastoma. The story made clear this is an experimental therapy and thus not yet widely available. The story made it sound like this was a new concept, but this research has been dancing in and out of the sensational spotlight for years. The story drew from a Duke news release but refrained from adopting the news release’s assertion that the poliovirus “significantly improved long-term survival for patients with recurrent glioblastoma.” Claim: Doctors Try Genetically Modified Poliovirus As Experimental Brain Cancer Treatment
Example Output:
This is one of two stories we reviewed about an early-phase trial of the use of a modified poliovirus for glioblastoma, a fatal brain cancer. The other review covers an NBC News story. Results of the study were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The story and the headline did an exceptional job of maintaining a cautious tone with phrasing, such as saying the approach “seems to have extended survival in a small group of patients.” It also did a good job of covering harms and describing the scope of the benefit. A couple of quibbles: The story could have mentioned the financial interests of the research team, and provided some context on how this isn’t a brand-new idea–it’s been in the spotlight of news coverage for a few years now. Stories about experimental treatments for fatal conditions such as glioblastoma serve the public when they exercise discretion and avoid raising false hopes. Journalists should also strive to give some perspective on the breadth of ongoing research. Notably, this study at Duke University gained notoriety beginning in 2015 when it was the subject of a two-part story on CBS News’ 60 minutes. HealthNewsReview.org ran a critique of that story.