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: "In the wake of the fatal police shooting in Ferguson, Mo., Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn was interviewed for nearly an hour on Wisconsin Public Radio about the incident and its implications. At one point during the Aug. 20, 2014 interview, Flynn told host Kathleen Dunn ""there are many reasons why (police) uses of force are dramatically down, and the main one is training."" Then, alluding back to Ferguson, the chief added: ""It's an extraordinarily rare event. But the fact is, (in) 2012, there were 12,197,000 arrests in the United States, OK? And there were 410 uses of deadly force. Now that is, I think, three-thousands of a percent. So, it’s still an extraordinarily rare event."" In the comparison Flynn uses, there is one police killing in 0.00003 percent of all arrests -- an even tinier fraction than he suggested. But expressed another way, the 410 is an average of more than one police killing per day. So, what about the two figures themselves: Are they accurate and do they account for all of the people who are killed by police? Renewed focus Around the country, attention to the use of deadly force by police was heightened after Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot to death on Aug. 9, 2014, in Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb. In Milwaukee, residents held rallies to raise questions about the Brown case and about the April 2014 death of Dontre Hamilton, a 31-year-old who was shot multiple times by a police officer during a struggle in Red Arrow Park in downtown Milwaukee. (In Milwaukee, there was one police killing of a citizen in 2012, four in 2013 and two through late August of 2014, the Police Department told us.) PolitiFact National rated Half True a claim by conservative talk show host Michael Medved that ""more whites than blacks are victims of deadly police shootings."" The claim ignored the fact that there are more than five times more whites than blacks in America. And our colleagues rated as False a statement that an unarmed black person is shot by a police officer every 28 hours. The report that had been cited by CNN pundit Marc Lamont Hill looked at all deaths, not just those of unarmed individuals. And it rolled in some deaths that did not involve police officers. Flynn’s claim Flynn, who headed the police departments in Arlington, Va., and Springfield, Mass., before becoming Milwaukee’s chief in 2008, is known nationally for his use of data. When we asked for evidence for Flynn’s claim, a Milwaukee police spokesman cited two FBI reports. Both are from 2012, the most recent full-year statistics available. There were 12,196,959 arrests across the country in 2012, which means the figure Flynn used -- 12,197,000 -- was rounded up only slightly. The highest numbers of those arrests were for drug abuse violations, driving under the influence and larceny-theft. There were also 410 cases of justifiable homicide in 2012, according to the FBI, which defines justifiable homicide as the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. For example: A police officer responding to a bank robbery alarm who shot a suspect after the suspect fired at the officer. But that doesn’t taken into account all police killings of citizens. FiveThirtyEight.com, a news website devoted to data analysis, recently reported that the 410 is a minimum figure. The numbers are self-reported by local police agencies and not audited, not all police agencies report those figures to the FBI and the number doesn’t include homicides that weren’t ruled justifiable. The FBI totals are likely an undercount for another reason, criminologists told us. Researchers who examine police killings of citizens within large metropolitan police departments often find that the number of such incidents recorded by the departments are higher than the number of justifiable homicides reported by the FBI. But the criminologists also noted Flynn’s comparison is one legitimate way to measure the frequency of police killings. Our rating Flynn said that in 2012, there were nearly 12.2 million arrests and ""410 uses of deadly force"" by police in the United States. The Milwaukee police chief correctly quotes official FBI statistics on arrests and justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers, although it appears the 410 is an undercount of the number of people killed by police. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website." Claim: "In 2012, there were nearly 12.2 million arrests and only 410 ""uses of deadly force"" by police in the United States."
Example Output: "Flynn said that in 2012, there were nearly 12.2 million arrests and ""410 uses of deadly force"" by police in the United States. The Milwaukee police chief correctly quotes official FBI statistics on arrests and justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers, although it appears the 410 is an undercount of the number of people killed by police."

Example Input: Paragraph: WTOP-FM reports that the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department is partnering with the National Fire Protection Association Research Foundation on a four-phase study. Part of the focus of the study will be on how chemicals can cling to breathing equipment used by firefighters. Firefighters are exposed to toxic chemicals released into the air by burning buildings and vehicles. According to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study, firefighters are twice as likely to get skin and testicular cancer and mesothelioma. ___ Information from: WTOP-FM, http://www.wtop.com Claim: Firefighters study carcinogen exposure.
Example Output: Firefighters in Virginia are taking part in a study aimed at finding ways to reduce their exposure to carcinogens.

Example Input: Paragraph: The costs of antidepressants weren’t discussed, but perhaps that is understandable in this kind of broad overview of a meta-analysis. Fluoxetine (prozac) and venalfaxine (effexor) are now both generic. So costs are pretty low. The story gave detailed breakdowns of percent improvement in scores on depression tests and provided an estimate of the number needed to treat in order for one to benefit. The difference in benefits between older and younger patients was highlighted. There was at least the acknowledgement that these drugs do carry side effects – but none was specified nor quantified. Several of the limitations of the meta-analysis were mentioned in the story. Of course, one key limitation in such cases is how they selected studies for the analyses (ones already available to them from the National Institute of Mental Health and from drug companies). This may not bias the results but may bias the interpretation (the authors say they only know these effects for prozac/effexor and can’t comment on other drugs; that could possibly lead a reader to incorrectly conclude that only prozac/effexor are shown to be effective.) No disease mongering about depression here. The story interviewed Irving Kirsch, frequently cited/quoted on antidepressant research issues. It also did a good job of noting potential conflicts of interest. The story at least noted alternatives including psychotherapy and exercise, but didn’t give information about the effects, pros/cons of these options. The availability of antidepressants was not in question. The story didn’t analyze the novelty claim that the researchers made: “To our knowledge, this is the first research synthesis in this area to use complete longitudinal person-level data from a large set of published and unpublished studies. The results do not support previous findings that antidepressants show little benefit except for severe depression.” The second point was made in the story, but perhaps the story should have explained a bit more about the methodological reasons for why this analysis was – or what made it – different or important. As to the first (questionable) part of the claim, what’s novel is this: more studies than the previous analysis, adolescents/adults/older adults included and analyzed by these groups. The story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Study suggests overall benefit from antidepressants
Example Output:
Reporters usually don’t write the headlines, but we wish someone would have changed the headline on this story. The body of the story conveyed important questions – about the number needed to treat – and about differences in treating the elderly – that perhaps were worthy of headline attention. The story tried to capture why this is important in its opening sentence: Despite recent debate about how well antidepressants really work in people with only mild or moderate depression, a new analysis of drug studies suggests they may have some benefit across the board. But there is a nuance here. The previous patient level meta-analysis (JAMA) included fewer studies, but across a broader spectrum of depression (minor depression to major depression), and some with longer followup  The current study and more included trials (good) restricted their analyses to studies enrolling patients with major depression (also good – this is the group for whom it appears treatment is most indicated) but only have short-term results (not so good). Although this level of detail is probably beyond what is needed for a general circulation story, pointing out WHY these 2 studies may have found different results and specifically noting that the results apply to those with major depressive disorder would be helpful