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: "State Sen. Frederica Wilson, a Miami Gardens Democrat running for the congressional seat now held by Kendrick Meek, is making an unusual boast about her accomplishments as a school board member: She says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing. ""Here is what she says on her campaign Web site: ""As a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board, Senator Wilson introduced reading labs and an African-American history curriculum into our schools, as well as a dirty-dancing ban in our community. ""She reiterated that claim in a March 9, 2009 press release announcing her campaign and on her Facebook page -- so there's no doubt she's against kids engaging in nasty booty moves. Pelvic thrusts aren't usually mentioned in congressional campaigns, so we jumped at the chance to explore whether she truly had introduced a ban. First, some background on dirty dancing. To many, the phrase conjurs up memories of the 1987 movie starring Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Remember the story? Grey plays a good girl nicknamed ""Baby"" who is on a family vacation at a Catskills resort. She stumbles upon a room where the working-class crew -- including Johnny, a beer-swigging-shirt-unbuttoned dance instructor played by Swayze -- are grinding their scantily clad bodies wrapped around each other in Do You Love Me. Johnny teaches Baby to dance -- among other, ahem, lessons -- and they fall in love. She learns some choreographed dance moves that are more of the gaze-into-each-other's-eyes variety than the make-your-grandma-blush type. In one famous scene, he lifts her by her hips as she is dripping wet in a lake. A decade later, the Miami-Dade school board took up the topic. There was no mention of the movie in the articles we found about the mid 1990s discussions, but there was plenty of harrumphing about kids dancing in sexually suggestive ways. ""I've seen it in little tiny elementary school children. I couldn't take it, "" Wilson said in a Nov. 19, 1995, Miami Herald article which stated that she asked school administrators to hold a meeting on the topic. ""I don't think it sets a good standard for our district. We cannot allow (the dancing kids) to degrade the school district or themselves."" In a 1997 op-ed, school board member Wilson said she was considering introducing a ban. ""It has been called 'dirty dancing,' but it's really nothing more than simulated sexual intercourse. Outrageously, too many folks involved with Dade County's public schools -- including teachers, administrators, and parents who ought to know better -- call it 'cheerleading,' 'marching,' or other types of school-sponsored student performance. Whatever it's called, it's vulgar and degrading. It has no place in our schools, on our playgrounds, or in our students' lives. So, imagine my disgust and dismay when I marched in Dade's Martin Luther King Day Parade earlier this year and saw Dade high school cheerleaders bumping and grinding their way down Martin Luther King Boulevard."" In a July 1997 news article, she was quoted saying, ""I've seen horrendous behavior. I saw a band member bend over and a female majorette come from behind and simulate actual intercourse. I almost passed out, but people in the stands were applauding. ""Rather than calling it a ""dirty dancing ban,"" it was known as ""Guideline 25B: Student dance performances and/or productions: Procedures for promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment. ""The board's explanation of the rule said that cheerleading, dance and band performances at events, performances or educational settings ""are essential to the establishment and maintenance of an atmosphere that fosters cultural and artistic exchanges. However the board recognizes that certain modes of dance are inappropriate, unsuited for immature audiences and may offend the community's sense of propriety rather than foster appropriate conduct that is consistent with school board rules and state statutes."" School board documents said the rule prohibited performances that depicted ""actual or simulated sexual intercourse (normal or deviate), masturbation, excretory functions and actual lewd exhibition of genitalia."" It's clear from news coverage and school board minutes that Wilson was the driving force behind the ban. School board minutes for the July 9, 1997, meeting state that Wilson proposed the rulemaking. The motion passed unanimously. On Aug. 27, 1997, the school board voted again in favor of the proposal. But there's still a bit of exaggeration in her statement: Wilson described this as a ban ""in our community"" when it strictly related to school-related groups or performances. She told us that was a reasonable description because ""the dirty dancing ban was on school bands and majorettes in the community. We have a lot of parades -- the MLK parade, different half time shows at football games in the community. I witnessed it -- a lot of forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone."" Clearly Wilson introduced the dirty dancing ban approved by the school board in 1997 and we don't doubt that school activities now have less forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone. But her claim that the ban would apply ""in our community"" is a little misleading. Some people might think her ban applied to the entire county, not just the schools." Claim: "Frederica Wilson Says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing."
Example Output: Frederica Wilson says she banned dirty dancing

Example Input: Paragraph: Older adults who underwent a brief course of brain exercises saw improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed that could be detected as long as 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever on cognitive training. The findings, published on Monday in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, offer welcome news in the search for ways to keep the mind sharp as 76 million baby boomers in the United States advance into old age. The federally sponsored trial of almost 3,000 older adults, called the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study, or ACTIVE, looked at how three brain training programs - focusing on processing speed, memory and reasoning ability - affected cognitively normal adults as they aged. People in the study had an average age of 74 when they started the training, which involved 10 to 12 sessions lasting 60 to 75 minutes each. After five years, researchers found, those with the training performed better than their untrained counterparts in all three measures. Although gains in memory seen at the study’s five-year mark appeared to drop off over the next five years, gains in reasoning ability and processing speed persisted 10 years after the training. “What we found was pretty astounding. Ten years after the training, there was evidence the effects were durable for the reasoning and the speed training,” said George Rebok, an expert on aging and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the study. Participants in all three training groups also reported that they had an easier time with daily activities such as managing their medications, cooking meals or handling their finances than did participants who did not get the training. But standard tests of these activities showed no differences between the groups. “The speed-of-processing results are very encouraging,” said study co-author Jonathan King, program director for cognitive aging in the Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the research. King said the self-reported improvements in daily function were interesting, but added, “We do not yet know whether they would truly allow older people to live independently longer.”  However, researchers said even a small gain would be likely to ease the burden on caregivers and healthcare providers. “If we delay the onset of difficulties in daily activities even by a small amount, that can have major public health implications in terms of helping to curb healthcare costs, delaying entry into institutions and hospitals,” Rebok said. The training course was designed to bolster specific cognitive abilities that begin to slip as people age. It does not aim to prevent dementia caused by underlying disease such as Alzheimer’s. At the start of the study, all 2,832 participants were cognitively normal. The study included four groups: three training groups plus a control group of volunteers who came in for regular testing to see how they were faring with age. People were trained in small groups over a period of several weeks and then were tested immediately after the training and again one, two, three, five and 10 years later. About 60 percent of the volunteers who underwent training also got booster training sessions, which enhanced the initial benefits. At the end of the trial, all groups showed declines compared with their initial baseline tests in memory, reasoning and processing speed, but those who got training in reasoning and processing speed experienced less decline. Among those given training in reasoning strategies, 73.6 percent were still performing above their pre-trial baseline level, compared with 61.7 percent of those who received no training and were only benefiting from practice on the test. The effect was even greater in processing speed. Among the training group, 70.7 percent of participants were performing at or above their baseline level, compared with 48.8 percent of those in the control group. There was no difference in memory performance between the memory group and the control group after 10 years. Two of the three training programs - the memory and the reasoning strategies - were done with paper and pencil, while the processing speed training was done on a computer. The programs, developed by the researchers, were focused largely on teaching strategies to improve cognitive performance. For example, the memory training taught people how to remember word lists, sequences and main ideas, while the reasoning training focused on things like recognizing number patterns. In the processing speed training, people were asked to focus on the main object in a computer screen while also trying to quickly recognize and identify objects on the periphery of the screen. Such training can help older drivers with things like recognizing road signs while driving. A version of the speed training program developed for this trial is now commercially available through the brain fitness company Posit Science, but the researchers are working on making other types of training available as well. Rebok’s team just got a grant from the National Institute on Aging to make a computerized version of the memory test, with the hope that repeated training can improve the results. The study was not designed to explain why cognitive training can have such a lasting effect. Rebok said it may be that people take the strategies they learn and practice them over time. As they age, trained individuals can rely on these strategies to compensate for their declines. Whether this training actually strengthened the brain in the way that exercising builds muscle is not clear, but the government intends to study this, too. Last week, NIA put out a request for proposals that would study whether cognitive training causes physical changes in the brain. Claim: Brain training helped older adults stay sharp for years: study.
Example Output: A brief course of brain exercises helped older adults hold on to improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed for 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever done on cognitive training.

Example Input: Paragraph: Oly Ilunga, who opposed using the vaccine developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, resigned as minister on Monday after being bumped off the Ebola response team. The World Health Organization recommended the two-dose shot to complement a vaccine by U.S. drugmaker Merck, which has proved highly protective but is in relatively short supply. Proponents, including medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) and the Wellcome Trust, said the new vaccine could be deployed to areas not yet affected by Ebola to create a firewall against the virus, which the WHO declared an international health emergency last week. But Ilunga said the J&J vaccine had not been proven effective and could confuse people in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where wild rumours are hampering the response. “Congolese have the right to have the gold standard, the best vaccine,” he told Reuters on Thursday, in his first public comments since resigning. “They don’t need to be the subject of experimentation.”    “You can’t have a group of promoters, producers of the vaccine (and) university researchers wanting to introduce the vaccine without contacting the health authorities,” he said, without elaborating further. Paul Stoffels, J&J’s chief scientific officer, denied there were any efforts to secretly introduce the vaccine and said the company had been in full communication with Congolese authorities. But scepticism about new medicines can resonate strongly on a continent where some pharmaceutical trials have faced accusations in the past of failing to obtain informed consent and providing subpar care to participants. For example, some U.S. government-funded trials of HIV drugs in the 1990s were accused of double standards for giving placebos to women in Africa when effective therapies existed, a practice that is not generally allowed in the United States and other Western nations on ethical grounds. Researchers defended the use of placebos as scientifically necessary. Jean-Jacques Muyembe, an epidemiologist and Ebola expert named to lead Congo’s response team, dismissed Ilunga’s concerns and said authorities would revisit whether to deploy a second vaccine. However, he downplayed the importance of the decision. “I don’t think that a vaccine is what’s holding back the response,” he told Reuters, noting that previous Ebola outbreaks had been contained quickly without a vaccine. “We could use or not use. It won’t change the evolution of the epidemic,” he said. The nearly year-long outbreak has infected more than 2,500 people and killed more than 1,700, numbers topped only by a 2014-16 outbreak in West Africa that killed more than 11,300. This month, a case was detected in Goma, a city of 2 million on the border with Rwanda, heightening fears about the spread of the haemorrhagic fever. Efforts to contain it have been undermined by mistrust of health workers and violence by armed militias. Treatment centres have been attacked. Local campaigners say people are scared and confused about the various medicines being used. In addition to the vaccine, four experimental treatments are being given to Ebola patients. All are still unlicensed, which means they can only be used in clinical trials overseen by Congo’s health ministry. “We should not introduce a second vaccine when we don’t yet have scientifically-proven conclusions from the one currently being tested,” said Matina Mwanack, the administrator of an advocacy group in the eastern Congo city of Butembo called Families United Against Ebola. “(We) have suffered a lot from the lack of needed information about the vaccines and treatments being tested.”   Omar Kavota, who heads a group of religious and political leaders in eastern Congo, said “introducing a second vaccine would amplify rumours”, including over why some patients got one while others received the second. Muyembe said communicators had been appointed to make the process more transparent. Proponents of a second vaccine argue it can only be tested in a live outbreak, since it would be unethical to deliberately infect trial volunteers. They propose deploying it where the disease has not yet spread, while the Merck vaccine continues to be used to protect contacts of suspected cases. “Both vaccines should work hand in hand,” said Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and one of the scientists who first discovered the Ebola virus. Since the West African outbreak, J&J has tested its vaccine on more than 6,000 volunteers in a dozen trials, confirming its safety and ability to generate an immune response. It requires two injections 56 days apart - another obstacle cited by Ilunga - in an area where fighting causes frequent displacement, but should last longer. “The goal is to give a long-term safe profile for people who may never be exposed to Ebola,” said J&J’s Stoffels, adding that 1.5 million doses were available. Josie Golding, head of epidemics at the Wellcome Trust, said “we could run out of Merck vaccines” if the outbreak extends into a second year. Health authorities have already begun using smaller doses to ration supplies. Congo’s health ministry disputes there is a shortage of the Merck vaccine. The company said it expects to have about 900,000 doses available over the next six to 18 months, in addition to the 195,000 doses it has already donated. The ministry has also considered potential vaccines developed by China’s CanSino Biologics and the Russian research institutes Rospotrebnadzor and Gamaleya, but those discussions are less advanced. (GRAPHIC: In Africa, a virus spreads: tmsnrt.rs/2ReWwZU) Claim: Deployment of second Ebola vaccine would not be quick fix, experts warn.
Example Output:
The resignation of Congo’s health minister in the midst of the country’s worst Ebola outbreak could clear the way for a second experimental vaccine to be deployed. But the new shot would likely take months to win the trust of frightened locals and show results, health officials say.