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: Texas health officials have been offering the vaccinations since Monday, three days after lawmakers were notified that a page had come down with the highly infectious disease. At least two House members and their staffs received vaccinations, and one representative who often takes her 9-month-old to work called her pediatrician to check what precautions she should take. The whooping cough case is being held up as a warning in the Texas House, where politically active vaccination opponents have tried to claim territory. “I know it’s on people’s minds,” said state Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat from Houston. “People speculate about which members are going to come down with it because they didn’t get vaccinated.” Vaccinations are a recurring fight in statehouses, including in Washington state, where a measles outbreak has lawmakers trying to limit vaccine exemptions. A bill in New York would let minors get vaccinated without parental consent, while a California proposal would give state health officials — instead of local doctors — the power to decide which children can skip vaccinations before attending school. Whooping cough is a bacterial infection also known as pertussis that often starts with what feels like a mild cold, followed by weeks of intense coughing fits. The disease gets its name from the sound some people make at the end of a coughing jag when they gasp for breath. There are about 10,000 to 40,000 cases of pertussis reported each year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control. Forty-seven people in the Texas Capitol received pertussis vaccinations supplied by state health officials Monday and Tuesday, said Lara Anton, a spokeswoman with the Texas Department of State Health Services. She said she could not disclose any details about the person who contracted whooping cough, citing privacy, but House pages are typically children around middle-school age. “It was a large number of people who were potentially exposed,” Anton said. In Texas, the number of schoolchildren claiming vaccine exemptions has surged from about 2,300 students in 2003 to more than 56,000. Some legislation filed this year would make it easier to opt out of vaccines or prevent state health officials from tracking exemption data. On Wednesday, worries over vaccination exemptions in Texas could even creep into a vote over a new $250 billion state budget. A Democrat filed one amendment that would study vaccination levels at child-care facilities. “That a case of pertussis was confirmed on the House floor should be a wake-up call,” said Rekha Lakshmanan, director of advocacy and public policy for The Immunization Partnership, based in Houston. “The fact it happened inside lawmakers’ own house should give everyone a reality check.” ___ Follow Paul J. Weber on Twitter: https://twitter.com/pauljweber Claim: Whooping cough case at Texas Capitol leads to vaccinations.
Example Output: Nearly 50 people who work at the Texas Capitol have been vaccinated this week because a page contracted whooping cough, a health scare that comes as legislatures around the country grapple with rising immunization exemptions and recent measles outbreaks.

Example Input: Paragraph: Roy treads carefully as the water rises to his knees, seeming for a moment to lose sight of his prey. Then in one swift action he steps back, takes aim and shatters the outback calm, and a crocodile, with a single booming shotgun blast. I am definitely not in Sydney anymore. For more than 10 years I have dreamed of photographing the daily lives of Aboriginal Australians in the northern-most tip of the Northern Territory, Australia’s rugged “Top End”. Their Arnhem Land reserve - closer to Bali than Sydney - covers an area of around 97,000 sq km (37,500 sq miles), has a population of around 16,000 and access for non-Aborigines is by invitation only. Australia’s Aborigines are the custodians of the longest unbroken cultural tradition on Earth, having migrated Down Under from Africa via Asia between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago, and connection to the land is practically written into their DNA. But the arrival of European settlers in the 18th century marked the beginning of a painful disenfranchisement. Massacres are still tearfully remembered and today the majority of Aborigines live in abject poverty. Last year, while on patrol with the Indigenous Australian Army unit known as NORFORCE, I met Sergeant Norman Daymirringu, a Yolngu Aborigine, who invited me to go hunting with him near Ramingining, located a bumpy and dusty 600 km drive east of Darwin. Norman is allowed by tradition to share his ancient culture with those he deems worthy, and I was honoured to have been told the Yolngu people’s creation stories and shown their sacred sites. But entering Arnhem Land as a “White Fella” means changing gears and seeing the world through a completely different set of eyes, a great challenge for a photographer. For example, an outsider might struggle to understand a site such as “Dog’s Tongue”, an orange rock amid a barren salt pan, but for Norman it is an integral part of the creation of the universe. The rock has tipped over from its normal position and Norman, as custodian of the land, affords me the rare honor of watching as he puts it back in place, where it has stood for countless millennia. At Yathalamarra, a community consisting of around a dozen houses, we pick up some relatives for the hunt and head on foot to an isolated billabong. With the sun blazing and temperatures reaching 40 degrees Celsius, or 104 Fahrenheit, I am getting pessimistic, when suddenly Roy fires his shotgun. At his feet lies a dead crocodile. Roy pulls the beast from the water, while Marcus keeps lookout. Not far from the shoreline the water starts moving. Suddenly Marcus pounces and, from just beneath the surface, he pulls another crocodile, this one a bleating baby. Roy is nervous about crossing the billabong carrying a heavy dead crocodile, but wanders downstream and grabs a boat hidden in the bushes. Using a stick as a paddle he navigates towards us, throwing the two crocs onto the muddy shore. Wow, its over, I think. We can head off with a great catch and potential feast awaiting. Roy has other ideas: “It’s easier to carry them without all that skin,” he tells me. Any butcher would have been extremely impressed with the skill he showed at filleting this massive beast. The baby was carried out alive. As we are leaving, Roy wraps the intestines in leaves, as nothing that can be eaten is wasted, and he and his sons walk the few kilometers back to the car with crocodile meat and a goanna lizard slung over their shoulders. As for me, I walked away with a unique insight into their culture and some photographs that not many others have had the privilege of taking. Claim: Hunting for pictures, and crocodiles, in remote Aboriginal country.
Example Output: We are deep in a forest crowded by Australian paperback trees, the air thick with humidity but eerily silent save for the screeching of tropical birds, when Marcus shouts: “Look, crocodiles!”    As a Reuters photojournalist, I’m a trained observer, but I can’t see any crocs. I can’t see anything beyond mud and what little water is left in the small billabong. Aboriginal hunters Marcus and Roy, a father and son team, take off running past a herd of water buffalo and by the time I catch up Roy is standing ankle-deep in murky water, his shotgun pointed at the surface. Hang on a minute: wasn’t your son pointing at crocodiles in that water ten seconds ago? Is this safe?

Example Input: Paragraph: The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. The story reports both the 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths that the researchers attributed to screening, as well as the calculation that 2,500 women would have to be screened for a decade to prevent one breast cancer death. The story points out that there are many false alarms among women who are screened with mammography and that most of the cancers that are found and treated would not have been lethal. It notes calculations from an editorial accompanying the study that for every breast cancer death prevented five or more women are treated for tumors that would never have become lethal. The story accurately describes the study and highlights some of the advantages of the methods used in this study compared to earlier studies. We wish it had mentioned some of the limitations of the observational methods used. For instance, the researchers mentioned that a longer study may have found a larger benefit to screening. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story does not exaggerate the threat of breast cancer and emphasizes that this study and others indicate that the effect of mammography screening is more modest than most women believe. The story includes more than one independent source. However, the story does not tell readers the sources of funding, which were the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story highlights experts talking about the decision about whether or not to get screening mammograms, and therefore addresses even the option of foregoing mammograms. Although the availability of mammography is not at issue in this story, it could have pointed out that the researchers attributed most of the decrease in breast cancer deaths to multidisciplinary breast cancer management teams. While all the women screened by mammography in Norway had access to these expert teams, women in the U.S. who get mammography may not have access to this sort of treatment support. In this case, the novelty of the approach is the study method. The story reports that Norway provided researchers with a unique opportunity, since mammography screening was phased in over a nine year period, thus allowing researchers to compare the outcomes of women who were screened to similar women who were not. The story includes interviews and other information that does not appear to come from a news release. Claim: New study widens debate on the value of mammograms
Example Output:
This story clearly outlines how a study of mammography screening in Norway feeds into debate about the value of breast cancer screening. It includes the comments of experts who have a variety of perspectives on the latest data. Women have been whipsawed by often confusing statements and claims about whether and when to get a mammogram. This story lays out how the latest study data points to benefits of screening… but that the benefits appear to be smaller than most people believe.