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: The Miami-based hurricane center issued a tropical storm warning for islands including hurricane-hit Abacos and Grand Bahama, saying the system could become a tropical depression or storm before making landfall as early as Friday. Hurricane Dorian slammed into the Bahamas on Sept. 1 as a Category 5 storm, one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes on record to hit land, packing top sustained winds of 185 miles per hour (298 km per hour). The tropical cyclone was not expected to bring anywhere near that level of devastation, but was capable of winds of 30 miles per hour and 2 to 4 inches of rain through Sunday, according to the hurricane center. Aid groups rushed shelter material to residents living in the shells of former homes or whose homes had been stripped of their roofs. “We’re seeing plastic tarps go out all over the islands, and that’s extremely important because now you’ve got another tropical storm coming,” said Ken Isaacs, vice president of programs for U.S. relief organization Samaritan’s Purse. The prime minister of the Bahamas, Hubert Minnis, on Wednesday said the official death toll was 50 but was expected to rise. Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said he believed “hundreds” were dead on Abaco “and significant numbers on Grand Bahama,” the Nassau Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday. Minnis said there were problems coordinating aid due to the level of devastation and he was trying to remove “bureaucratic roadblocks.”  With 1,300 people still missing, according to the Bahamian government, relief services are focused on search and rescue as well as providing life-sustaining food, water and shelter. Officials have erected large tents in Nassau to house those made homeless by Dorian and plan to erect tent cities on Abaco capable of sheltering up to 4,000 people. A flood of aid has caused bottlenecks at docks and airports, creating “a lot of delays” in relief supplies, said Nat Abu-Bonsrah of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, the global humanitarian organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Due to a shortage of functioning vehicles and facilities on Grand Bahama, the group turned to church members to lend their cars and kitchens for its program providing hot meals to over 400 people a day in Freeport. “We’ve not been able to reach them as much as we want,” he said of efforts to get hundreds of hygiene kits to survivors. Groups like Samaritan’s Purse, with their own aircraft or logistics chains, said they had not encountered issues with coordination or government red tape. “I think we’re accomplishing our mission, any roadblocks we have right now are our own,” said Dennis Clancey, a field operations manager for relief group Team Rubicon, which has deployed mobile medical units to treat patients. Claim: Tropical storm warning issued for Bahamas; 1,300 still missing.
Example Output: A tropical cyclone was forecast to move across the northwestern Bahamas in the coming days, potentially bringing more rain and wind to islands already devastated by Hurricane Dorian, the U.S. National Hurricane Center warned on Thursday.

Example Input: Paragraph: "It is less surprising that neither story discussed costs, given that so few stories do. But sample costs could have been obtained by calling any of the numerous medical marijuana outlets in states where it is legal. Both stories did a decent job of quantifying the benefits.This story provided more details, though, including the differences in patient experiences between the three different concentrations of marijuana. It also repeated this important bit of information: ""There was also no difference in the quality of life or mood scores that participants reported when they were on any of the four treatments."" The story also does a great job of pointing out that the treatment duration of five days in each dosage phase is too short to judge utility for chronic pain, which is a long-term affliction. Neither story actually quantified the harms, but they both noted there were side effects. This story did a better job, though, by noting that the only dose that seemed to work also seemed to produce the most side effects and by raising the issue of long-term safety concerns. It also was the only story to answer the question that readers surely would have when reading about an illegal narcotic being used as medicine. Did these patients feel high as a result? This story says that most did not. Because of the additional information and context, the rating here is satisfactory. This story, unlike the competing WebMD piece, establishes in the first sentence — even in the first three words — that this was ""a small study."" It then discusses the limitations of the study at several points. The second sentence says, ""The pain reduction was ""modest"" – less than 1 point on an 11-point scale for the strongest marijuana – and patients reported no overall difference in their quality of life based on what they smoked."" The writer elegantly and succinctly described the study design — a complex randomized cross-over trial with double blinding and delved into an important feature of the study, that the subjects in retrospect may have been able to detect during which phase of their experience they inhaled placebo versus the most potent drug. This story avoids disease mongering, and, in fact, goes beyond that to note how few people actually suffer from the type of chronic pain that was the subject of the study: ""About 1 to 2 percent of adults in the U.S."" The story quotes two outside experts, one of whom is completely independent from the study and the journal, Dr Andrea Hohmann. Beyond that, we would bet that the reporter spent more time interviewing Dr. Mark Ware, the lead researcher, or at least asked tougher questions. Because Ware is more measured in this story than in the WebMD story. He even goes so far as to say, ""What about long-term safety issues?"" he asked. ""These need to be considered before the drug becomes prescribable."" As with the WebMD story, it would have been nice to see who funded the research. Unlike the WebMD story, this one did not point out the conflicts of interest of Dr. Henry McQuay. This story talks about a range of treatment options and even has the study’s lead author suggesting, that ""these patients should also be getting behavioral and physical therapy."" Strangely, neither story we reviewed pointed out that marijuana is illegal in most states and in Canada, where the study took place. The story could have, at a minimum, mentioned which states have medical marijuana laws or talked about whether any other countries currently allow cannabis to be sold in pill form the way it was used in this study. The story alludes to the fact that this study ""supports a limited number of trials that have suggested marijuana may be helpful for people suffering from chronic pain,"" indicating that the treatment is not very novel at all. It would have been nice to see more context around that. The WebMD story provides a little more information in this regard. If the news release is to be believed, ""This is the first trial to be conducted where patients have been allowed to smoke cannabis at home and to monitor their responses, daily"". That could have been made clear. The story goes well beyond the release. Here’s the release." Claim: Pot may provide some chronic pain relief: study
Example Output: The story did a great job evaluating the evidence, providing outside voices, discussing alternatives to marijuana smoking, and presenting both the benefits and the potential harms. It could have done a better job discussing possible costs, availability and conflicts of interest. From the headline to the last sentence, this report avoided overstatement of the applicability of the potential benefit and used clear incisive language that left the reader with a good understanding of the study and its implications. This topic lends itself to jokey, pun-filled writing, but this story played it straight. Chronic pain can ruin lives, and a breakthrough with an alternative approach would be important news. As this story makes clear, until some larger studies with fewer limitations are undertaken, we are far from the point where marijuana can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain.

Example Input: Paragraph: "There was no discussion about the cost of increasing fruit and vegetable content in the diet, but it’s safe to assume that most people know the costs from their grocery shopping. The story mentioned that the study it was reporting on found no reduction in breast cancer recurrence for individuals that reported eating more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. The researcher said ""We didn’t find any harm in going over (a threshold of fruits and vegetables)."" This story presented a mosaic of information without any indication of the relation between the pieces. It opens with a statement that ""While it’s true that adding fruits and vegetables to a woman’s diet can help prevent cancer from recurring…."". A nutritionist follows with some guidance to breast cancer patients sharing her advice about choice of fruits on the basis of color; and that the food ""you eat matters tremendously"". It then provides ""data"" from a previous study, though the percentage reported is not consistent with the study results. Finally, the story goes on to discuss the results of the most recent study which were cast as showing that eating more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables doesn’t provide any benefit or additional harm. But then they go back and talk about other dietary advice regarding meat, alcohol, and tofu without any indication of what the source is for this information nor that it is independent of the newly-highlighted study. Lastly there is a discussion between the anchor and medical correspondent where the anchor suggests that cancer risk is due to genetics and the medical correspondent agrees that ""fate is a big part of it"". However – genetics and fate are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably. There was no overt disease-mongering – that is, exaggeration of the prevalence of breast cancer or recurrence. However, one weakness in the story is that it contained no information about prevalence. In the study highlighted in this report, 16.7 and 16.9% of the women (in the intervention vs. control groups) experienced a recurrence of breast cancer. Providing this information allows the viewer to have a sense of how often the event they hope to prevent actually occurs. The story sought independent perspectives. However, here are two suggested improvements: When the lead author of the highlighted study was interviewed, he was not identified as such; the nutritionist was identified by her work place without indicating that she was not involved in the highlighted study. The story failed to mention other breast cancer recurrence stragies (avoiding weight gain, medications, etc.) This story illustrated availability of fresh fruits and vegetables with a walk-through of a grocery store. That said, the study reported on involved an intervention designed to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, but not limited to fresh produce. It’s clear that the study finding is new. However the story could have been much more clear on the context of other related research. The story sought independent perspectives." Claim: Extra servings of veggies fail to prevent cancer
Example Output:
"Ostensibly reporting on a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, this story, although labeled as ""In Depth,"" actually gave little time to the results of the study or its ramifications. The majority of the air time went to various pieces of information about breast cancer prevention without any substantiation. The story jumped around in a confusing manner. It initially informed us that ""it’s true that adding fruits and vegetables to a women’s diet can help prevent cancer from recurring."" Then it disclosed that the most recent study indicated that eating more fruits and vegetables didn’t reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. It ended with a conclusion that cancer diagnosis is a matter of fate and even though everyone wants to do everything in their favor, that ""for the individual – there are no guarantees."" For something to be labeled ""In Depth,"" we would have appreciated more clear explanation of what the new findings were, how or why experts differ with their findings about the impact of fruits and vegetables in this context, and what steps viewers could take to learn more. Although technically the story addressed many of our criteria, the final ratings score may give the impression that the story was more complete than we actually think it was."