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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Becerra was discussing the findings of a 147-page report prepared by his office that also found that detainees face long periods of confinement without breaks and language barriers in the 10 detention facilities state authorities inspected in 2017. Becerra said the annual report released Tuesday is the first of 10 that the state Legislature requires of the California Department of Justice, which is tasked with inspecting all federal immigration detention facilities in the state. That law was one of three immigration-related “sanctuary state” bills passed in 2017 that the Trump administration unsuccessfully challenged in court. Inspectors spent one day on scheduled visits at 10 facilities in operation in 2017. ICE contracted with four for-profit prison companies and six county sheriffs to house and care for the inmates. Since then and amid growing protests, sheriffs in Sacramento and Contra Costa counties terminated their contracts with ICE to house federal immigration inmates in the local jails. A third facility near Bakersfield is also facing closure after the city of McFarland told ICE it would not renew its contract when it expires in March. Becerra said many of the problems are caused by inadequate federal oversight. He said a common “challenge” inspectors found at most facilities included confining inmates to their cells for up to 22 hours a day. He noted that most of the detainees are not accused of crimes and are awaiting court decisions on their immigration status. ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley said the private prison companies and county jails that house detainees “must meet rigorous performance standards.” “The safety, rights and health of detainees in ICE’s care are of paramount concern and all ICE detention facilities are subject to stringent, regular inspections,” Haley said. The attorney general’s report estimated that 74,000 immigrant detainees have been held in California detention centers over a three-year period ending in 2017 with an average stay of 50 days per inmate. Becerra said the state inspections of federal immigration facilities in California were necessary “because everyone in this country has constitutional rights and everyone at the end of the day — child and adult — deserve to be treated in a human way.” In a separate report , California’s state auditor Elaine Howle said cities and counties failed to properly monitor the facilities in their locales. Howle’s report also called on ICE to be more transparent in its detention operations. “The state lacks complete information about how much it costs and what conditions the detainees face,” Howle’s report concluded. “Also unclear are how many detainees are being held throughout California, where they are being held, and for how long.” Claim: California officials: Immigration facilities lack oversight.
[EX A]: Detainees confined to federal immigration detention facilities located in California have inadequate access to health care, lawyers and family, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Tuesday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The total number of infections climbed to 41,495. “In the past 24 hours we had 117 new deaths and 3,186 new confirmed cases of people infected with the coronavirus,” Kianush Jahanpur told state TV, calling on Iranians to stay at home. Iran has had an intercity travel ban since Thursday and the government has extended the closure of universities and schools and the suspension of all cultural, religious and sports events. “If necessary, we might impose tougher measures as our priority is the nation’s safety and health,” said Iran’s first Vice President, Eshaq Jahangiri, according to state TV. Iran last week warned of a surge of cases as many Iranians ignored calls to avoid traveling for Persian New Year holidays that started on March 20. To stem the spread of the virus in crowded jails, Iran’s judiciary on Sunday extended furloughs for 100,000 prisoners. On March 17, Iran said it had freed about 85,000 people from jail temporarily, including political prisoners. Iranian media on Monday, citing the governor of Iran’s Fars province, Enayatollah Rahimi, reported that prisoners at one prison “broke cameras and caused other damage in two sections of the prison where violent criminals are kept”. The state news agency IRNA said similar riots had erupted in other prisons since March 20. Families have called for the release of all prisoners. Claim: Iran plans tougher restrictions as coronavirus toll rises.
[EX A]: Iran had 117 new coronavirus deaths in the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 2,757, a health ministry spokesman said on Monday, prompting the Middle East’s worst hit country to consider tougher curbs on movement.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "While no price has been set, this story still confronts cost by pointing out that other biotech drugs cost thousands of dollars per month of treatment. The story included key details about the difference in survival rates and length between the treatment and control arms of the trial. The story gives both the median survival length and the three-year survival figures for participants in the treatment and placebo arms of the trial. It might have been helpful to say ""half the men survived at least"" rather than ""median survival was."" The story lists the serious side effects reported in the trial and the fact that earlier trials raised worries about strokes related to treatment. Although this story, like the USA Today report that we reviewed, stated in the lead that patients receiving Provenge lived four months longer without specifying that it was four months longer than placebo, not standard therapy, it does a better job of detailing the available results. The story improperly compares the reported survival advantage of the experimental treatment to the expected survival of men receiving standard chemotherapy, implying the two treatments have been tested head-to-head. The story also includes speculation that Provenge could be more effective when given earlier in the course of the disease, even though there is no evidence to support the statement. Quotes at the end of the story from leaders of some patient advocacy groups overstated the evidence of effectiveness, but they seem to accurately reflect the perspective of these activists. The story didn’t discuss the condition of advanced prostate cancer in detail, so this is N/A. The story includes comments from independent experts. It notes that the drug developer paid for the study and that the lead researcher owns company stock. In addition, the story notes how the company stock price was fluctuating; a good reminder that research reports can have substantial financial consequences. The story did not refer to the stock price jump earlier this month that followed the vague company announcement at a meeting with analysts claiming that the treatment extended patient survival. The story mentions that chemotherapy with Taxotere is the only approved treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. It should not have stated that Provenge produces a greater survival benefit, since the treatments have not been directly compared. The story points out that Provenge has not been approved by the FDA. The story reported that Provenge is the first therapeutic cancer vaccine ""to meet a preset goal for improving survival in late-stage testing."" The story included original reporting. However, one comment from a spokesman for the American Urological Association appears to have been taken from a news release without specifying that it was contained in a statement, rather than in an interview." Claim: Study: Prostate cancer vaccine extends survival
[EX A]:
"Given about double the space of the USA Today story we also reviewed, this report includes important information about conflicts of interest and the financial impact of research reports, as well as details that bring the trial results into clearer focus, such as median survival data and the fact that the FDA declined an earlier application for approval of Provenge. The story meets most of our criteria, and, thus, gets a high rating. But it has its flaws. The quotes in this story almost uniformly praise the drug as an advance or even groundbreaking. Only one comment suggests questions remain about side effects. None highlights the point that despite treatment, two out of three participants died within three years. While other stories quoted experts who called the results an ""incremental"" advance, no such cautionary perspectives were included in this story. The reporter erred by comparing survival data from this Provenge trial to the typical results of standard chemotherapy. Since the trial merely compared Provenge to placebo, not to standard treatment, it is inappropriate to claim the experimental drug is superior. Rather than raising expectations by saying doctors ""hope for even greater benefit if they give the drug earlier,"" the story should have simply stated that it is not known what effect this treatment might have if given earlier in the course of prostate cancer. This point is important because if the FDA approves the treatment for advanced prostate cancer, doctors may begin offering it to men with less extensive disease based on belief, instead of evidence, of effectiveness."