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 first total solar eclipse to cross the U.S. in a century bought millions together in what some could only describe as a primal experience. Thousands of immigrants took the oath of citizenship, realizing their dreams of becoming Americans. And one adorable baby, Fiona the hippopotamus, became a story of survival as she overcame the odds and tumbled into the world’s heart. The stories provided some lighthearted moments amid a series of deadly mass shootings, terrorist attacks, hurricanes, wildfires, sexual harassment scandals and other tragic news in 2017. Here’s a look at a few of the moving, unifying and just plain fun moments of 2017: YAY, SCIENCE! It seems nothing brought Americans together more than the first total solar eclipse to move across the U.S. in a century. For one moment in the middle of an August day, millions of people stopped what they were doing and gazed upward in wonder as the moon slipped over the sun — leaving a path of total darkness that stretched from Oregon to South Carolina. Some eclipse watchers sang, some danced and some were moved to tears. Kids thought it was pure magic, and people traveled to remote sections of the country to get the best glimpse. A study by the University of Michigan, requested by NASA, estimated that 215 million American adults — or 88 percent of the country’s adult population — viewed the eclipse either directly or electronically. That’s 104 million more than the 2017 Super Bowl. “People were really just about nature, about this phenomenon that was happening,” said Mamta Patel Nagaraja, who works on public engagement for NASA. “It didn’t matter what color, creed, race, economic ladder you were on, people just went out and enjoyed it. “It transcended all the other things,” she said. ___ #TEAMFIONA This little one wasn’t expected to make it. Fiona, a Nile hippopotamus, was just 29 pounds (13 kilograms) when she was born prematurely in January. After early health scares, she’s now thriving at more than 600 pounds (272 kilograms). This sassy girl has become a symbol of survival — and the star attraction at the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden. Fiona has captivated the masses and the Team Fiona craze isn’t slowing down. She stars in her own internet video series. Tens of millions have gone online to watch her take a bottle, splash in the pool or learn to run. T-shirts bear her image. She’s the subject of children’s books. An ice cream flavor and local brew are named in her honor. She gets so many cards and letters that she has her own mail bin. Grown men will lean over the pool in their suits and ties to get close to her, said zoo director Thane Maynard. “It’s Fiona’s world, and we’re just living in it,” Maynard said. In her early, most vulnerable days, Fiona received letters and pictures from kids who were preemies themselves, urging her to stay strong. After nurses at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center helped care for the hippo, the zoo sent Fiona-themed onesies to the preemies there. “We are working with Fiona and her story to spread a number of messages — one is a message of not giving up,” Maynard said. __ INSPIRING GENEROSITY Out of cash and out of gas on an interstate exit ramp in Philadelphia, Kate McClure found help from an unlikely source: a homeless man who told her to stay put, then used his last $20 to buy her gas. Johnny Bobbitt Jr.’s selflessness was not lost on McClure. She set up a GoFundMe page for the military veteran and former paramedic, and raised more than $400,000. Now Bobbitt has enough money to buy a home and his dream truck — a 1999 Ford Ranger. An attorney and financial adviser helped create a plan that will allow him to collect a small monthly salary and have some money for retirement. Bobbitt has said he’s overwhelmed. He told “Good Morning America” he plans to pay the generosity forward by donating some of the money to organizations that will help others. “Everybody out there is facing some kind of struggle, so if I can touch their life, the way mine was touched, (it’d be) an amazing feeling,” he told “Good Morning America.” ___ “YES!” OVER ROAST CHICKEN From a simple proposal over roast chicken to plans for a royal wedding, news that Prince Harry is engaged to American actress Meghan Markle has many cheering. The story drew people in for many reasons. For one, it’s fun. The happiness exuded by the couple as they announced their engagement was contagious, while details of their courtship read like a fairy tale. Harry, an army veteran who had a one-time bad-boy image but is now devoted to wounded veterans and charitable causes, met Markle on a blind date. The prince later said that’s when he realized he needed to up his game to win her heart. They grew closer while camping in Botswana, and now there is talk of starting a family. But for some black women the engagement offered more than entertainment. It gave them a Cinderella story they could picture themselves in. Markle, who is divorced, is bi-racial and will be the first woman of color in modern history to join the British royal family. “We all have this fantasy of being swept off our feet by the prince. It’s validation that, of course, we can be princesses,” Essence Magazine Editor-in-Chief Vanessa K. DeLuca said at the time. ___ PROUD AMERICANS Manny Macias came to America when he was just 3 months old. Three decades later, he became a citizen of the only place he’s called home. “The U.S. has always been home for me,” said Macias. “Now it’s official.” The federal government says more than 600,000 people became naturalized U.S. citizens in the first nine months of 2017. The ceremonies can be huge moments for those involved. Many times they are family affairs, complete with proud smiles or tears of joy as the newest Americans realize dreams that were years in the making. Many dress in their best and pose for photos while clutching American flags. Macias, 31, said he’s now glad to be able to vote, have more stability and live without fear of being deported. “It was important to me to get the documentation saying I was a citizen,” he said. “I did get a little emotional, because finally for me, the journey was done.” ___ Follow Amy Forliti on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/amyforliti. More of her work at: https://apnews.com/search/amy%20forliti Claim: Solar eclipse, loveable baby hippo warmed hearts in 2017.
Example Output: It wasn’t all doom and gloom in 2017. The year was also filled with awe-inspiring moments that united us and warmed the heart.

Example Input: Paragraph: We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, “It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ.” It also says, “The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome.” The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, “There were no false-negative results with the new test.” We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study’s findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these: “In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won’t replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies,” says Mark I. Evans, MD,  director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. “The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndrome…Down syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance.” The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it’s a screening test. The distinction – and the significance of that – could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is “not ready for prime time….in a year or two, this test may be available.” The story does not establish the test’s novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, “In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 3–5% of the population.” This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way:  What is already known on this topic: Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA Its diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds: Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.” The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome
Example Output: This thoroughly reported and carefully written story avoids giving pregnant women false hope of an easier way to detect genetic anomalies while still presenting some compelling information about a new blood test. Pregnancy can be anxiety inducing because of the sheer number of tests already required of women: frequent blood tests, ultrasounds, and amniocentesis in many cases. Add to that the barrage of stories about the way diet and environmental conditions may be affecting in utero development at any given point and one can understand why women might want a simpler solution to find out whether their child might have a genetic disorder. Overall, we think if more stories approached screening the way this story did there would be fewer people demanding the latest over-hyped test from their doctor. This is a “hope for the future” level test that may be inching its way to market. It’s not available now and won’t be in the immediate future – and the story makes that clear.

Example Input: Paragraph: "During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., didn’t hold back in his criticism of Republican efforts to roll back the Affordable Care Act: He said such legislative efforts will literally be deadly. ""What the Republican proposal (in the House) does is throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance,"" Sanders told host Chuck Todd. ""What a part of Harvard University -- the scientists there -- determine is when you throw 23 million people off of health insurance, people with cancer, people with heart disease, people with diabetes, thousands of people will die."" Sanders continued, ""I wish I didn't have to say it. This is not me. This is study after study making this point. It is common sense."" Even if it seems like common sense that insurance would save lives, would it be on the scale of ""thousands,"" as Sanders said? And would legitimate studies show that? When we contacted Sanders’ office, spokesman Josh Miller-Lewis cited two sources. One is the ""Harvard study"" Sanders mentioned -- published on June 22, 2017, by the liberal Center for American Progress. It was co-authored by a Harvard professor of social epidemiology; two medical students who graduated from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and two policy specialists at the Center for American Progress. To come up with their estimates, the authors of the Harvard-Center for American Progress report adapted the results of a peer-reviewed 2014 study of the Massachusetts state health care law -- a law that was a model for the Affordable Care Act. The 2014 study was lead-authored by Harvard professor Benjamin D. Sommers. The Harvard-Center for American Progress study projected that there would be one excess death for every 830 people who lose coverage as a result of the AHCA. Using Congressional Budget Office projections of the impact of the House version of the bill, the authors estimated an additional 217,000 deaths over the next decade, or 21,700 per year. The second piece of evidence Sanders’ office cited was an op-ed by yet more health policy specialists who are affiliated with Harvard -- David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, who are professors of public health at Hunter College-City University of New York as well as lecturers at Harvard Medical School. The op-ed -- published on Jan. 23, 2017, well before either chamber’s Republican health care bill was introduced -- used as its basis a different study lead-authored by Sommers. This 2012 study tracked what happened after states expanded Medicaid. Adapting the findings of the 2012 study to a scenario in which 20 million Americans lost coverage -- which turned out to be lower than what the CBO found for the House bill -- Himmelstein and Woolhandler estimated that there would be 43,956 deaths annually due to the GOP’s health policy changes. It’s worth noting, however, that both of these projections come from the ideological left. As we noted, the Center for American Progress is a liberal think tank. And Himmelstein and Woolhandler are founders of Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that advocates for single-payer national health insurance -- a proposal that is even further to the left than the Affordable Care Act. So can Sanders’ assertion be supported by the peer-reviewed literature alone? In our previous fact-checking of this issue, we found at least seven academic papers that detected a link between securing health insurance and a decline in mortality. Here’s a rundown. • In 2002, a panel of more than a dozen medical specialists convened by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 Americans had died in 2000 because they were uninsured. In January 2008, Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, published a paper that sought to update the IOM study with newer data. Replicating the study’s methodology, Dorn concluded that the figure should be increased to 22,000. • A 2009 American Journal of Public Health study concluded that a lack of health insurance ""is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease."" • Three studies looked at state-level expansions of Medicaid and in each case found ""significant"" improvements in mortality after such expansions of coverage. These include a 2012 New England Journal of Medicine study of New York, Maine, and Arizona by Harvard researchers, and a 2014 study of Massachusetts by researchers from Harvard and the Urban Institute. (These were the two articles that formed the basis of the analyses cited by Sanders’ staff.) • A 2014 study published by the  blog of the health policy publication Health Affairs looked at states that, at the time, had declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It estimated that the 25 states studied would have collectively avoided between 7,000 and 17,000 deaths. • A 2014 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found improved survival rates for young adults with cancer after securing insurance under the Affordable Care Act. • A 2017 study in the journal Medical Care looked at a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows young adults to be covered under a parent’s policy. The study found a decline in mortality among this population from diseases amenable to preventive treatment. (Mortality from trauma, such as car accidents, saw no decrease, as would be expected.) We found two papers with results that were more equivocal. • A paper published in April 2009 in HSR: Health Services Research. In it, Richard Kronick of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine, raised questions about the conclusions of the seminal Institute of Medicine study from 2002. Kronick’s study adjusted the data -- as the IOM had not -- for a number of demographic and health factors, including status as a smoker and body mass index, and found that doing so removed the excess number of deaths found in the original study. • A 2013 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine co-authored by Katherine Baicker of Harvard University compared about 6,000 patients in Oregon who got coverage through a 2008 Medicaid expansion and about 6,000 who didn’t. While the study found improvements in out-of-pocket medical spending and lower rates of depression among those who got coverage, key benchmarks for physical health -- including blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar -- did not improve in such patients. But even the two lead authors of the more equivocal studies have told us that the scholarly record demonstrates that having health insurance saves lives, and that not having insurance can lead to additional deaths. We asked several of the authors of these papers whether they believe Sanders’ assertion of ""thousands"" of deaths is generally supported by the scholarly evidence. We heard back from three of them. "" ‘Thousands’ is completely fair,"" Dorn said. Baicker agreed. ""It is of course difficult to pin down an exact number of deaths that would be caused by a specific new policy,"" she said. ""But a number like ‘thousands’ does not seem unreasonable, based on the available evidence."" And Sommers -- whose work formed the indirect basis of the studies cited by Sanders -- concurred. ""I agree that it’s challenging to pin down an exact number on this,"" Sommers said. But overall, the academic evidence ""certainly gets you into the range of thousands of deaths per year."" Sanders said, ""When you throw 23 million people off of health insurance -- people with cancer, people with heart disease, people with diabetes -- thousands of people will die. … This is study after study making this point."" Sanders’ statement on Meet the Press was phrased generally enough to be defensible. We found ample evidence in the academic literature to suggest that legislation on the scale of the House bill would produce ""thousands’ of additional deaths. That said, we can’t say with any specificity how many deaths will occur. It’s important to note that the studies provide estimates only, and each study found a slightly different result. On balance," Claim: When you throw 23 million people off of health insurance -- people with cancer, people with heart disease, people with diabetes -- thousands of people will die. … This is study after study making this point.
Example Output:
"Sanders said, ""When you throw 23 million people off of health insurance -- people with cancer, people with heart disease, people with diabetes -- thousands of people will die. … This is study after study making this point."" Sanders’ statement on Meet the Press was phrased generally enough to be defensible. We found ample evidence in the academic literature to suggest that legislation on the scale of the House bill would produce ""thousands’ of additional deaths. That said, we can’t say with any specificity how many deaths will occur. It’s important to note that the studies provide estimates only, and each study found a slightly different result. "