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.

[Q]: Paragraph: "A University of Texas English professor says a law enabling Texans with state permits to carry concealed guns into classrooms has already caused prospective faculty, students and even speakers not to come to the Austin campus. Lisa Moore said in an NPR interview aired Aug. 7, 2016, six days after the campus-carry mandate took effect: ""We already have concrete examples of faculty who have declined to apply for jobs here at the university or who, once offered jobs, have turned them down when they realized that this policy would go into effect, students changing their minds about coming to our graduate and undergraduate programs, and invited speakers declining to come when they realized that we couldn't guarantee that they would give their talk in a gun-free space."" ""Concrete examples"" is definitive. So, how about details? First it’s worth noting that since 1995, Texas law has allowed any individual with a concealed handgun permit to carry a gun on public college and university sidewalks, streets, parking areas and other grounds. In 2015, state lawmakers widened the law by voting to let permit holders also carry guns in campus buildings, except in areas excluded under rules adopted by each school’s president. UT-Austin President Gregory L. Fenves has written that he doesn’t believe handguns belong in campus buildings; still, he agreed to allow them in classrooms because, he said, barring them would have the effect of generally excluding guns from campus, which the law prohibits. In February 2016, Fenves also wrote Bill McRaven, the UT System chancellor: ""Since this is a new law with an unknown effect on UT Austin, we will monitor implementation and its impact on students, faculty members, and staffers. I have significant concerns about how the law will affect our ability to recruit and retain faculty members and students. Fenves is among state defendants, too, in a lawsuit filed by Moore and two fellow professors seeking to bar civilian handguns from campus. On Aug. 22, 2016, a federal judge denied their request for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed them to ban concealed handguns from their classrooms. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said he found no precedent for the argument that professors have a right of academic freedom under the First Amendment so broad that it overrides decisions of the Legislature and the university that employs them. Moore, Jennifer Lynn Glass and Mia Carter were still free to pursue the merits of their case. But Yeakel’s ruling was a considerable setback for them, as they wanted to ban guns in time for the start of fall classes. Virginia professor declined UT visit Moore, asked for concrete examples, initially responded with an email reminding that an out-of-state candidate for a UT deanship said he bowed out of consideration in 2015 due to the gun law. A February 2016 Austin American-Statesman news blog post quoted Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia professor of media studies who’d previously earned UT bachelor’s and doctoral degrees, saying he’d been contacted by a search firm helping the university find a dean for the Moody College of Communication--and, the story said, was later told he was a finalist. But the gun law weighed on him; the story said that if chosen, Vaidhyanathan said, he’d have felt compelled to side with faculty members seeking to bar guns from classrooms. ""I would probably be fired immediately,"" he said. ""I told the search firm I was no longer interested in the position."" To our inquiry, Vaidhyanathan provided a December 2015 email he sent to search firm officials declining their invitation to return to the Texas campus for ""an extended visit and a dinner"" about the deanship that would have included meetings with Fenves and others. Vaidhyanathan’s email said the prospect of guns being allowed in classrooms meant he couldn’t ""pursue this position with enthusiasm."" Vaidhyanathan wrote: ""I could not, in good conscience, ask faculty and students to put themselves into an environment in which students, visitors, or even faculty could be armed. My wife is a scientist. I could not ask her to take a job at a university that was forbidden by law to restrict guns from classrooms. The very consideration of that possibility puts a chilling effect on open and relaxed discourse in the classroom. And the fact that the university cannot restrict guns on campus in general means that university police officers are forbidden to do their jobs effectively. They can’t diffuse a threatening situation until it becomes a dangerous one. ""Universities are tense enough already. And we all count on our university police forces to confront and (defuse) threatening situations as early as possible. The State of Texas has put every student and professor in Texas in danger. I applaud the chancellor, the president, the faculty, and the students for their strong opposition to campus carry."" So, that’s a candidate for dean confirmed. Next, we followed up with Moore about particular students, other prospective faculty and speakers deciding not to come to UT due to the gun law. A mother’s email Moore forwarded a November 2015 email sent by a parent, Rachel Zucker, to a UT mailbox. The message says: ""Dear UT, I want you to know that my son, Moses Goren, is a straight A student at Hunter College High School (in NYC) who has expressed interest in applying to your Plan II program at UT (Austin). He and I have decided, however, that he will not apply to any schools that have campus carry laws. We believe that guns should not be allowed on college campuses and that guns present a serious physical danger for faculty and students. If you were to make UT Austin a safer place by making it illegal to bring a gun on campus, I would eagerly and proudly have Moses apply to your esteemed school. Thank you, Rachel Zucker"" To our inquiry, Zucker confirmed her son’s decision. ""Both of us feel even clearer about this than we did when wrote that email. The rampant gun violence and lack of commonsense gun control in this country should be a source of unmitigated shame for our leaders and legislators,"" Zucker said by email, adding that she hopes UT bans guns on campus. Moore also noted the departures of two UT faculty members by 2016. In each instance -- Architecture Dean Frederick Steiner’s move to the University of Pennsylvania and economist Daniel Hamermesh’s shift to opportunities abroad -- news stories and emails we fielded from the men describe the gun law as a factor, though not the only factor, in the departures. Hamermesh urged us to consult Joan Neuberger, a UT history professor, who responded by emailing a prospective graduate student’s February 2016 email saying she would decline UT’s offer of admission ""due to my misgivings with the campus carry guidelines President Fenves released today."" Nora Dolliver went on: ""Although I think that UT would be a wonderful place to complete my graduate training, I am unwilling to study or work in an environment where my classmates, professors, students, or patrons are permitted to carry handguns."" Harvard professor’s decision A March 2016 news story in UT’s student newspaper, The Daily Texan, quoted Moore saying a Harvard University professor had withdrawn from a search for a faculty position in the UT Women and Gender Studies department because of the measure letting guns into classrooms. By phone, Moore told us the professor, Robin Bernstein, had been urged by Moore and others to apply in 2015, but Bernstein, citing the gun law, declared she wouldn’t. ""She definitely would have been a finalist,"" Moore said, adding that faculty were ultimately unable to fill the position. By email, Bernstein told us she was invited to apply for a professorship in women’s and gender studies but declined to do so ""in large part because of the changes in Texas law to allow guns in class."" Bernstein shared a portion of her November 2015 email to Moore about deciding not to apply. The email says Bernstein had been ""watching the madness with the Texas legislature"" and wasn’t more than 50 percent sure she’d accept the UT job if it were offered. Concerned outside speaker Moore, asked about speakers deciding not coming to campus, pointed us to Paloma Diaz, an administrator in UT’s Teresa Lozano Long Institute for Latin American Studies. Diaz said by phone that a speaker who teaches at the University of Washington cited the gun law in initially resisting the institute’s invitation to give a talk in fall 2016, though she said the speaker subsequently relented. Diaz said she didn’t have permission to identify the speaker. Otherwise, a web search showed the institute has posted a notice that Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, a UW professor, is expected to visit and give talks Sept. 26, 2016. Godoy didn't respond to our query. We couldn’t fairly consider a couple of late-breaking instances of invited speakers deciding not to come to UT because their decisions became public after Moore spoke to NPR. Still: --A Duke University professor, Karla Holloway, wrote Phillip Barrish, a UT English professor, that she was rescinding her acceptance of Barrish’s invitation to speak on the campus in fall 2016. Holloway wrote Aug. 26, 2016: ""I believe guns, and especially the vulnerabilities exposed in conceal carry cultures, contribute mightily to our nation’s public health crisis. And with the conceal carry now in full effect there, and after discussion with my family, I just cannot come."" To our inquiry, Holloway forwarded a copy of the emailed March 2016 invitation from Barrish that she and Barrish told us she’d previously accepted. --Neuberger separately alerted us to a Texas Christian University historian, Hanan Hammad, reversing course about speaking at UT, also while citing the gun law (which allows private universities like TCU to opt out of the mandate). To our inquiry, Hammad forwarded her Aug. 26, 2016, email rescinding her agreement to speak in October 2016. Hammad wrote that ""with campus carry now in full effect at UT, I just cannot come. I'm always proud to be a UT alumnus and I owe my mentors and teachers great deal, but I'm in full solidarity with all UT faculty, staff, and students whose health and lives are in danger due to campus carry. I believe open or conceal carry on campus is wrong and dangerous."" UT administration suggests claim solid We also asked a university spokesman, Gary Susswein, about the accuracy of Moore’s claim. Susswein responded by emailing a web link to an August 2016 statement by sociologist Harry Edwards, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, in which Edwards said that due to implementation of the gun law, he was rescinding his permission to present UT lectures on sport and society, launched in 2014, in his name. ""My decision was an exceedingly difficult one,"" Edwards wrote, ""but silence is evil's greatest and most consistently dependable ally."" Another campus spokesman, J.B. Bird, said by email the administration could confirm Moore’s claim. Bird didn’t identify resistant individuals by name though he wrote that the university provost’s office ""confirmed hearing of a few people who decided not to interview and who stated that it was because of campus carry. Similarly, Bird said, provost officials say ""they have heard of a few cases of faculty speakers who have decided not to come to campus to give talks because of the law."" Bird said too that ""we know of students changing their minds about coming based on campus carry. Our admissions office said when the law was announced they received about 10 calls and 10-15 emails with applicants saying that they were not coming or would not apply. We assume that we don’t hear from 100 percent of the people who make this decision. ""That said,"" Bird wrote, ""we did just admit the largest incoming freshmen class in UT’s history, with about 8,500 freshman. From what we have seen, though, the assertion is  that some individuals have chosen not to come because of the new state law."" Our ruling Moore told NPR there are ""concrete examples"" of UT job applicants, prospective students and invited speakers deciding not to come to the university because of conceal-carry permit holders newly being allowed to bring handguns into campus buildings including classrooms. Not naming names, UT’s administration says this is so. We separately identified two out-of-state professors, a prospective graduate student and the mother of a high school student who cited the change in gun law and policy for not continuing to seek a UT position or not applying to come there--plus an outside speaker who reportedly resisted an invitation to speak on campus before relenting. – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Claim: "Lisa Moore Says there are ""concrete examples"" of University of Texas job applicants or prospective applicants and students as well as invited speakers changing their minds because of handguns being allowed in campus buildings and classrooms."
[A]: "Moore told NPR there are ""concrete examples"" of UT job applicants, prospective students and invited speakers deciding not to come to the university because of conceal-carry permit holders newly being allowed to bring handguns into campus buildings including classrooms. Not naming names, UT’s administration says this is so. We separately identified two out-of-state professors, a prospective graduate student and the mother of a high school student who cited the change in gun law and policy for not continuing to seek a UT position or not applying to come there--plus an outside speaker who reportedly resisted an invitation to speak on campus before relenting."


[Q]: Paragraph: The death toll increased by 683 on Wednesday. That was lower than a spike of 743 on Tuesday but more than the totals of the previous two days and the third highest daily tally since the outbreak emerged in northern regions on Feb. 21. Italy has seen more fatalities than any other country, with latest figures showing that 7,503 people have died from the infection in barely a month. The northern region of Lombardy, by far the hardest-hit, showed a steep decline in the number of deaths and new infections on Wednesday, raising hopes that the epidemic may be slowing at its original epicentre. However, optimism was tempered by warnings from the south, where contagion and deaths are far less widespread but are rising steadily, and could overwhelm a health service which is much less well equipped than in the rich north. “At this point there is the real prospect that Lombardy’s tragedy is about to become the south’s tragedy,” Vincenzo De Luca, president of the Campania region around Naples, wrote in an open letter to Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. “We are on the eve of a major expansion of infections which may not be sustainable,” he said, complaining that the central government had failed to provide Campania with promised ventilators and other life-saving equipment. So far there have been 74 deaths in Campania, the worst affected southern region. The central region of Lazio, around the capital Rome, has registered 95 fatalities. The total number of confirmed cases in Italy rose to 74,386 from a previous 69,176, the Civil Protection Agency said. The rise of 7.5% was the lowest since the outbreak began, but only severely ill people are being tested and the head of the agency, Angelo Borrelli, said this week that the true number of infections was probably 10 times those officially recorded. Borrelli was not present at the customary news conference to illustrate the latest figures because he came down with a fever on Wednesday and was himself being tested for coronavirus. With Italy in lockdown for the last two weeks and its economy on its knees, Conte on Wednesday promised a second stimulus package in April worth at least as much as the 25 billion euro ($27.17 billion) one he adopted in March. With his approval ratings at record highs, the prime minister appealed to the opposition to get behind the government’s efforts and halt its attacks on his handling of the crisis until it is over. “There will be a time for everything, but now is the time for action and responsibility,” he told the Chamber of Deputies. One source of potential conflict for Conte was defused on Wednesday when the government reached an agreement with trade unions who had threatened strikes because they wanted more companies shuttered to protect workers’ health. Conte agreed to extend the production sectors that will be  temporarily closed because they are not deemed essential to the country’s supply chain. Claim: Italy coronavirus deaths pass 7,500 amid fears of spread to south.
[A]: More than 680 people have died from coronavirus in Italy in the last 24 hours, the Civil Protection Agency said on Wednesday, as concerns grew that the disease was spreading more towards the south of the country.


[Q]: Paragraph: "Ever wonder about the accuracy of your milk carton’s expiration date? Or exactly how late is too late to eat that apple? So did comedian John Oliver. He used the July 19 episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight to discuss the issue of food waste, zooming in on little-known regulatory gaps that he argued cause mass confusion over the meaning and purpose of date labels on food. ""With the exception of baby formula,"" Oliver said, ""the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely."" And of the 50 states, he went on, nine don’t require any labels at all. The confusing issue has been well documented over several decades, though we doubt it’s ever been the target of an 18-minute monologue in a late-night comedy show. We wanted to see if Oliver had it right. Chaotic laws, confusing labels Oliver was right in saying, with the exception of infant formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date. Experts say it would be almost impossible to set up an effective umbrella regulation for labeling foods with expiration dates. The diversity of climates and crops in the United States means it’s hard to judge the pace at which different foods deteriorate in different places. A piece of fruit left out in the hot, humid fields of Georgia might spoil faster than the same piece of fruit left out in the cool, dry mountains of Colorado. In the absence of an overarching federal statute, a jumble of laws at the state level dictate which foods require date labels. The comedian’s research team got the bulk of its data from a 2013 report compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental think tank, and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. The study found that most states have laws that require date labels on some foods. Oliver cites the report’s finding that nine states don’t require any date labels, including New York, Idaho and Alabama. Of those nine, seven states don’t have regulations that govern the labels that manufacturers voluntarily place on products. These inconsistencies can make it hard to do business across state lines, said Emily Broad Leib, the study’s lead author and director of the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic. Laws in Montana and Pennsylvania require milk to be sold 12 and 17 days after pasteurization, respectively, but don’t allow the milk to be donated if it goes unsold in that time. ""Without federal guidance,"" Leib said, ""some state laws require that (unspoiled) food be thrown away."" The Montana law prompted some out-of-state dairy farmers to argue that the law unfairly protects in-state producers. Label it what you want The regulatory gap also leads to confusion about what food labels actually mean. As a news clip in Oliver’s segment illustrates, one might see the same product labeled ""sell by"" or ""use by,"" or it may have no label at all. Most retailers and manufacturers use a labeling system referred to as ""open dating."" Though it might sound like a relationship status, ""open dating"" simply means that a calendar date is displayed on a product instead of a code that only makes sense to the producer. Perhaps surprisingly, the dates on these labels aren’t regulated. This means it’s entirely up to the manufacturer to decide what date to print on the labels in all 50 states. (The strictest federal regulation of this kind applies to poultry, but it allows the use of a packing date instead of a sell-by date.) The purpose of manufacturers’ date labels isn’t to ensure safety, but quality, according to the USDA. Oliver suggests that because manufacturers are free to determine their own best-by dates, they may have a financial incentive to falsify them. But one expert said he wasn’t convinced manufacturers try to help out their bottom lines by making it seem like food perishes faster than reality. Quality standards almost always consider safety, said Keith Schneider, a food microbiologist at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Keeping a customer happy means also keeping them safe. ""These dates are usually based on lab tests and historical precedents,"" he said. Most of all, he said, manufacturers want to build brand loyalty by consistently guaranteeing fresh, safe food, so they are often overly conservative with sell-by and use-by dates. Leib said it would be difficult to prove a producer manipulates its dates to boost profits, ""but it would be perfectly easy to falsify that information."" Still, manufacturers have an interest in ensuring quality, and many times smaller companies don’t have the money to test their products and apply accurate sell-by dates. ""Sometimes,"" she said, ""dates are just made up."" Our rating Oliver said, ""With the exception of baby formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely."" While Oliver’s underlying argument for more regulation can be debated, he’s right to say that the federal government doesn’t require expiration dates on food, and state laws filling in that gap are inconsistent. A previous version of this story misstated the name of the Natural Resources Defense Council." Claim: With the exception of baby formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely.
[A]:
"Oliver said, ""With the exception of baby formula, the federal government does not require any food to carry an expiration date, and state laws vary widely."" While Oliver’s underlying argument for more regulation can be debated, he’s right to say that the federal government doesn’t require expiration dates on food, and state laws filling in that gap are inconsistent."