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: A photograph popped up on social media in May 2015, described as a picture of a blood clot removed from an 80-year-old patient after he presented with a 2-day-long nosebleed. According to the accompanying text, the patient coded shortly after arrival at an emergency room, and a blood clot that went “from his nose down his airway and into his lungs” was removed via intubation:  80 yr old male with nose bleed for 2 days. Refused to go to ER. Wife finally talked husband to go to ER. He coded shortly after arriving. Medical doctor went to do intubation and found this. Pulled it out in one piece. It a blood clot that goes from his nose down his airway and into his lungs. It an amazingly beautiful blood clot. The photograph was shared by Kevin Kimberlin, an EMT who told us that the patient was treated at a hospital he transports to and that he picture was taken by a friend of his who worked on the patient. In November 2018, the New England Journal of Medicine website posted a similar photograph of “an intact cast of the right bronchial tree” that was “spontaneously expectorated” by a patient “during an extreme bout of coughing”: Claim: A photograph shows a large blood clot removed from a patient's lung.
[EX A]: A photograph purportedly captured a huge blood clot removed from a patient's lung.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Phusion Projects LLC, which is based in Chicago, agreed not to sell caffeinated alcoholic drinks, agreed not to promote binge drinking or other misuses of alcohol, and accepted marketing limits designed to keep people under 21 from buying alcoholic products. Among these limits are a ban on promoting flavored malt beverages on school or college property except at licensed retailers, and not using models or actors under age 25 or who appear to be under age 21 in its advertising. Phusion also agreed to pay $400,000 to the regulators as part of the settlement. The danger of mixing caffeine and alcohol was spotlighted in 2010 when some college students were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning after drinking alcoholic energy drinks. Phusion that year removed the caffeine and other stimulants from beverages, including Four Loko, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned the company and rivals that “blackout in a can” drinks combining alcohol and caffeine were unsafe. “Alcoholic energy drinks are dangerous - especially for the teenagers and young adults they target,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Today’s agreement ensures that one company will no longer market a dangerous product to youth.”  In the settlement, Phusion denied the regulators’ allegations and that it violated any laws, including state laws governing consumer protection and trade practices. “We consider this agreement a practical way to move forward and an opportunity to highlight our continued commitment to ensuring that our products are consumed safely and responsibly only by adults 21 and over,” President Jim Sloan said in a statement. “Phusion continues to believe, however, as do many people throughout the world, that the combination of alcohol and caffeine can be consumed safely and responsibly.” Claim: Maker of Four Loko flavored malt liquor accepts marketing limits.
[EX A]: The maker of Four Loko has agreed with 20 U.S. state attorneys general and the city of San Francisco to a series of reforms to resolve allegations that it improperly marketed flavored malt beverages to young people and encouraged alcohol abuse.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "U.S. Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri , visited ABC 17’s ""This Week"" on Oct. 9, and was asked about ""Take Back The District,"" an anti-drug initiative she was launching. Hartzler said drugs posed a significant problem in her district. Employers, she said, tell her they cannot find an employee to fill a position because applicants can’t pass a drug test, while military recruiters say they have to turn away otherwise exceptional recruits because of drug use. Hartzler talked about her years teaching at-risk teenagers and cited a widespread drug problem in the United States and one of its most sobering effects: the displacement of children into foster care. ""Twenty-five percent of our kids in foster care are there because their parents are involved in drugs,"" Hartzler said. Certainly drug use by parents can lead to state intervention, but is the number of reported cases really this high? Foster care According to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, there are 397,122 children living in the foster system without permanent families. Hartzler has long been an advocate for the advancement of foster care, even co-publishing an article on its problems. Kyle Buckles, Hartzler’s communications director, pointed us toward the Green Book. Each year, statistics are compiled into the House of Representative’s Green Book, which is used to provide background material and data on the programs run by the Ways and Means Committee, including foster care. Foster care statistics Without considering alcohol, drug use by the parent was above 25 percent from 2010 through 2013, for which data is available. When alcohol is factored in, this number is more than 30 percent. Drug use is the second largest cause of the removal of children from their parent’s custody. The most prevalent circumstance for removal is neglect, which is present in over half of the cases in the United States — but it is important to remember that more than one factor may be cited in a particular case. For example, a child may be removed from his parents’ custody for neglect, parental drug abuse and child drug abuse. The problem appears to be getting worse. A 2009 study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that between the years 2002 and 2007, 12 percent of children between the ages of six to 11 were living with a parent who abused drugs or alcohol. Take Back the District Hartzler’s initiative has since met once to discuss the district’s drug issues. Her goal was to bring together law enforcement, parents, school officials, community leaders and citizens. The program met early on Oct. 19, where Hartzler, speakers and guests discussed the issuesand possible solutions to the problem and then diverted to a ""Faith-Based Rehabilitation and Ministry"" panel discussion. Our ruling Hartzler claimed that a quarter of children in foster care were there because of their parent’s drug abuse. Her claim is a modest estimation of the issue, according to reliable data kept by Congress. Drug abuse by parents is the second most prevalent reason for a parent losing custody of a child to foster care services.o be ." Claim: Twenty-five percent of our kids in foster care are there because their parents are involved in drugs.
[EX A]:
Our ruling Hartzler claimed that a quarter of children in foster care were there because of their parent’s drug abuse. Hartzler claimed that a quarter of children in foster care were there because of their parent’s drug abuse. Her claim is a modest estimation of the issue, according to reliable data kept by Congress. Drug abuse by parents is the second most prevalent reason for a parent losing custody of a child to foster care services. Her claim is a modest estimation of the issue, according to reliable data kept by Congress. Drug abuse by parents is the second most prevalent reason for a parent losing custody of a child to foster care services.o be True.o be True.