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: Officials in Cumberland County say the Department of Health was told Saturday that a person affiliated with the university was hospitalized with a “possible diagnosis of a bacterial meningitis infection.” They did not say if the ill individual is a student. Officials say they are coordinating with the school and the state to provide antibiotics to anyone who had direct close contact with the individual. The university sent a campus-wide notification Saturday. Meningitis is an infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. The bacteria that cause the infection can spread through kissing, coughing and sharing beverages. Signs and symptoms of infection include high fever, headache, stiff neck and a rash. Claim: Officials investigate possible meningitis case at NC college.

A: Health officials in North Carolina are investigating a possible case of bacterial meningitis at Methodist University.
****
Q: Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers

A: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."
****
Q: Paragraph: On December 5 2019 — after law enforcement officers in south Florida shot and killed a hostage, a bystander, and two suspected thieves during a daytime shootout in a busy intersection during rush hour — a number of popular tweets claimed that UPS had publicly thanked police for killing the hostage, who was one of their drivers:When the cops shoot you dead in the street your boss will thank the cops https://t.co/mHR0EBjGfl— Dennis Hogan (@dennismhogan) December 6, 2019The tweet above — sent a day after UPS driver Frank Ordonez, bystander Richard Cutshaw, and robbery suspects Lamar Alexander and Ronnie Jerome Hill were shot dead in the rush-hour police chase turned gun battle, mused:When the cops shoot you dead in the street your boss will thank the copsTwitter was alight with tweets excoriating the parcel service for “thanking” police after the shootout:While UPS management bends over backwards to thank the cops for killing a worker, the Teamsters don’t mince words: “murdered while delivering packages” #1u https://t.co/IrwI2cJWjT— Aaron Freedman🌹 (@freedaaron) December 6, 2019cops went fucking buck wild lighting up the ups truck killed the driver AND another innocent bystander and ups tweets out a thank you to the cops what the fuck pic.twitter.com/fcnnRAzMMm— jordan (@JordanUhl) December 6, 2019You don’t have to thank the cops for murdering somebody— Branson Reese (@bransonreese) December 6, 2019Their first tweet included a thank you to the murderous cops that killed Frank. UPS is a despicable company with great package handlers and drivers but horrible management. Upper management doesn’t give a rats ass that an employee was murdered and their 1st statement proves that pic.twitter.com/TnHto339Pv— SocMediaIsSometimesOk (@socmediaisdumb) December 7, 2019Dear Cops,Thank you for your service. Please don't come over here and kill the rest of us.We love you,UPS— Troy (@MetalOriginal) December 6, 2019Yeah i too would thank the cops for killing my employee yes thank you— srko (@tayoIor) December 6, 2019However, no such tweet was visible on the verified @UPS Twitter account. A tweet sent at 3:20 PM Eastern time on December 6 2019 mentioned Ordonez by name and alluded to a “senseless act of violence”:pic.twitter.com/RgWb94o3C6— UPS (@UPS) December 6, 2019A CBS News article published three hours later maintained that the deaths of Ordonez and Cutshaw were being “questioned” due to an “overwhelming use of force” by police:The overwhelming use of force is being questioned after a chase in Florida ended in a deadly shootout with police. It started when two men, who the FBI said were already wanted for two similar heists near Miami, robbed a jewelry store and hijacked a UPS van.After a 23-mile chase, the officers opened fire when the gunmen shot at them, leaving drivers in rush-hour traffic panicked and scrambling.The two men who police said robbed the jewelry store were killed. But so was 70-year-old Richard Cutshaw, who was waiting in his car at the intersection. The UPS driver who was taken hostage, Frank Ordonez, was also killed.Ordonez’s stepfather Joe Merino told reporters that his family was beyond “devastated” by his stepson’s death:For this to happen, I think, it was just unnecessary … Other tactics should have been applied, and they weren’t, so when I say the word devastated, it’s an understatement.Although @UPS appeared to have deleted their original tweet, it was archived on a third-party website. It was sent at 6:38 PM on December 5 2019, and it read:We are deeply saddened to learn a UPS service provider was a victim of this senseless act of violence. We extend our condolences to the family and friends of our employee and the other innocent victims involved in this incident. We appreciate law enforcement’s service and will cooperate with the authorities as they continue the investigation.Although the tweet did not say “thank you” specifically, it is true that UPS initially tweeted and deleted an initial statement thanking law enforcement for their “service,” service which resulted in the deaths of their driver Frank Ordonez, bystander Richard Cutshaw, and two robbery suspects, cousins Ronnie Jerome Hill and Lamar Alexander. Claim: "The @UPS Twitter account sent a tweet ""thanking"" law enforcement for their service just after an innocent UPS driver who had been taken hostage by robbery suspects was shot and killed in a police shootout."

A:
UPS Thanks Police for Killing Driver Frank Ordonez
****