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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: UPMC announced its collaboration with Bon Secours Health System on a joint venture to expand the Maryland-based nonprofit’s campus in Cork, Ireland. The six-story facility will begin offering radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning in 2019. It will be the second radiation center operated by UPMC in Ireland. UPMC opened its first, the Whitfield Cancer Centre in Waterford, in 2006. That facility was the hospital system’s first international cancer center. Bon Secours is Ireland’s biggest independent hospital group. They operate hospitals in Cork, Dublin, Galway and Tralee. UPMC also manages a cancer radiation center in Rome, Italy. Claim: UPMC partners to expand cancer care network in Ireland.

Output: The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is expanding its cancer care network in Ireland by entering a partnership on a new radiation therapy center in the country.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: On 21 January 2019, Slate published a article headlined “The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For.” That story highlighted significant changes to the definition of domestic violence appearing on website of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women office. An archived version of that website from April 2018 previously defined domestic violence as:  A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. By contrast, the current version of that same website encompasses only acts of physical violence under the definition of domestic violence:  The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. We reached out to the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) for an explanation on what motivated the change in the definition and whether that change was spurred by an actual change in law or policy. We received a response from Allison Randall, Chief of Staff for the OVW, that did not adequately answer either question. Her response is reproduced in full below:  The Department is strongly committed to enforcing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with the law enacted by Congress. Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission. By following the statute, the Department ensures the funds made available by Congress are employed in the most effective manner possible to reduce violence and to assist crime victims. In fiscal year 2018, OVW awarded a record $467 million under VAWA. President Trump’s request for fiscal year 2019 OVW funding was the largest ever requested. OVW discretionary grantees serve an average of 125,000 victims every six months and formula subgrantees serve over 400,000 victims each year. VAWA funding supports victim advocates who answer over a million hotline calls and provides over 2 million housing and shelter bed-nights for victims and their children annually. Every year, VAWA-funded professionals assist victims in securing more than 200,000 protection orders. The narrower definition employed in the current version of the OVW website stems from the definition provided in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as it relates to disbursing funds for VAWA grant programs. While it is true this narrow definition has not changed as it relates to the VAWA, it is unclear why the DOJ found it necessary to remove information about non-physical intimate partner violence. Writing in Slate, Natalie Nanasi, a Professor of Law and the Director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University, argued that:  A domestic violence relationship rarely begins with physical violence, much less violence that rises to the level of a crime. If you were punched on a first date, odds are there wouldn’t be a second. Intimate partner abuse is insidious: Emotional and psychological abuse escalates to physical violence as an abuser’s need and/or ability to exert power and control increases. In the United States today, more than half of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. If we do not acknowledge the “small” things — yelling or screaming, name-calling, and controlling or monitoring communication and social media — victims may not realize they are in danger until it is too late. In our response to the statement from OVW, we suggested that they had not provided any explanation for the change to their website and requested further clarification; if we receive such clarification, we will update our story. Claim: The DOJ changed the definition of domestic violence on their website without explanation.

Output: The Violence Against Women Act, which was extended by President Obama in 2013, expired at midnight on 22 December 2018 as a result of the 2018-19 federal government shutdown over funding for President Trump’s proposed border wall.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "A one month supply of Lipozene can cost up to $90 as reported in this story. This article also pointed out that other companies sell similar supplements for a much lower cost. This story is clear and accurate in its overall message that there appear to be no weight-loss benefits from taking Lipozene. This story uses expert opinion to point out the severe diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress would be adverse effects of taking the very large doses of the glucomannan fiber in Lipozene that might help someone to lose weight. This story also noted that glucomannan is not FDA approved as a weight-loss supplement. This authors of this story should be commended for their thorough research in medical literature and in consultation with independent experts to verify the lack of evidence supporting Lipozene’s weight loss claims. The headline of this story ""Fiber-based Lipozene’s weight-loss claims rest on thin evidence"" sums up the lack of credible evidence on which Lipozene bases its weight-loss claims. This story does a good job at pointing out that Lipozene’s ""clinically proven"" ""fat-reducing power "" does not appear to be based on any data published in the medical literature. Perhaps this claim is based upon a small study reporting that individuals taking a fiber supplement similar to Lipozene on a very low calorie diet lost weight. Mathematically the amount of weight lost would be accounted for by diet alone. This story debunks Lipozene claim that people can lose weight without dieting or exercisisng by citing current medical opinion, and common sense. The story does point out that the Federal Trade Commission has taken legal action against the Obesity Research Institute for making false claims about its other gucomannan containing products. As a footnote, the Obesity Research Institute does not appear to conduct any research despite its ""lofty"" name. This story does not engage in disease mongering but clearly points out that the makers of Lipozene do. The parent company, Obesity Research Institute, capitalizes on the public’s desire for a quick fix weight loss pill. This story took a well balanced approach to presenting both sides of the Lipozene story. Beneficial claims by the manufacturer were balanced with comments by two independent experts who expressed the opposite opinion. The story also tried unsuccessfully to verify claims that could not be otherwise verified with the manufacturer. The only significant omission ofthe story was not including basic information on weight-loss. This story briefly mentions diet and exercise, but could more clearly state these are the proven ways to lose weight. Also, a brief sentence about gastric bypass surgery in cases of severe obesity could have easily been included. There is no shortage of ‘get thin quick products’ being aggressively marketed in the media and widely available in drugstores trhoughout the country. Lipozene is no excpetion, as this story points out at the onset. This story makes it clear that weight-loss supplements including Lipozene are common place. We are confident the story did not rely on a news release." Claim: Fiber-based Lipozene’s weight-loss claims rest on thin evidence


Output: "Lipozene, a weight-loss supplement containing a type of fiber called glucomannan, is being promoted as a magic bullet for weight loss. The evidence supporting this claim is weak at best as aptly indicated in this story’s headline. This story was well researched and did a good job evaluating and refuting Lipozene’s weight-loss claims based upon review of the medical literature and by interviews with independent experts. Lipozene’s manufacturer, the Obesity Research Institute, did not respond to requests for justification of these claims. As pointed out in this article, the Obesity Research Institute paid a large settlement in response to the Federal Trade Commission charge that they made false and misleading claims about two of its other products containing the same fiber compound as Lipozene. This story did a very good job of documenting its ""bottom line"" – that despite aggressive marketing there is no evidence that Lipozene is a ""weight-loss breakthorugh"". This story is credible and was well done."