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 Input:
Paragraph: "As Donald Trump amps up attacks on the Clinton Foundation, Democrats are pointing out that Trump himself has given to the nonprofit he now calls a pay-to-play operation. Recently released emails between Hillary Clinton’s aides when she was secretary of state and officials at the Clinton Foundation have demonstrated that some foundation donors did get access to Clinton, though there’s no evidence of direct favors. Addressing the topic on NBC’s Meet the Press, Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe noted the Clinton Foundation’s work on HIV/AIDS and malaria and Trump’s own ties to the charity. ""The Clinton Foundation, I think it’s a universal agreement, has done remarkable work around the world. I think Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000 to the foundation,"" he said. Plouffe is right that Trump gave at least $100,000 to the foundation, a fact that Trump and his campaign readily admit. One caveat: It appears that the money came through Trump’s own foundation, not directly from Trump. The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It’s not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump’s gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation’s donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. Breaking it down by dollar amount, however, Trump’s total contribution isn’t that big. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. In 2009, the Trump Foundation gave $926,750 to some 40 organizations (page 18). The Clinton Foundation received one of the largest gifts that year, matched or surpassed only by the Arnold Palmer Medical Center Foundation ($100,000), the New York Presbyterian Hospital ($125,000) and the Police Athletic League ($156,000). Altogether, the Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 according to the nonprofit’s tax forms, Forbes found. Trump did not make any personal contributions to his foundations during this time. (Money for the Trump Foundation in these years came from others and from investment income.) Trump doesn’t deny that he donated to the Clinton Foundation that he now calls a criminal enterprise. During the first GOP primary debate in August 2015, Trump voluntarily brought up his giving to the Clinton Foundation when asked about his previous donations to Hillary Clinton. ""When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me,"" Trump said. ""With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice, because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world."" For the record, the Clintons did attend Trump’s third wedding to Melania Knauss, but that occurred in 2005, four years before the $100,000 donation. A few months later, Trump gave pretty similar answers when he was asked to explain the Forbes article on his charitable giving record in late January. ""I did give to the Clinton Foundation. What I didn't know is they'd be using it for private aircraft and things like that. The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things and I thought it was going to do some good work. So, it didn't make any difference to me,"" he said on Jan. 31’s Fox News Sunday. ""Again, I was a businessman and it was my obligation to get along with everybody, including the Clintons, including Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives."" Our ruling Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka’s father-in-law) as a contributor. It’s important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation. Claim: "David Plouffe Says ""Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000"" to the Clinton Foundation."

Ex Output:
"Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka’s father-in-law) as a contributor. It’s important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: He did not spell out why he expected no corresponding EU moves. But in a statement, his agency said a key finding in its latest annual report was a “marked rise in the potency and purity of Europe’s most commonly used illicit drugs, fuelling concerns for the health of users who, wittingly or unwittingly, may be consuming stronger products”. It also pointed out an increase in the numbers of cannabis-related health emergencies in Europe between 2008 and 2012. Gotz told a briefing arranged to present the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’s report: “In Europe I do not know any government, or parliamentary majority backing a government, that is currently seriously discussing cannabis legalization or regulation in a different way. “I don’t see a discussion coming up of the level as it is in the Americas,” he said in Lisbon, the agency’s headquarters. Portugal pioneered the decriminalization of all drug use in 2001 and some countries have followed suit, making possession of small quantities of drugs, especially marijuana, a misdemeanor rather than criminal offence. Germany allows seriously ill patients to grow, buy and consume their own cannabis under a special license, and medical marijuana is legal in the Czech Republic, but otherwise cultivation and use remain illegal in the EU. In the United States, 23 states and the District of Columbia allow medical marijuana, and voters in four states have gone further by approving the drug for recreational use by adults. But the drug remains illegal under federal law, which classifies pot as a dangerous narcotic with no current medical use. The EU drug monitoring agency said technical innovation and market competition have led to an increase in the potency of cannabis, the purity of cocaine and the MDMA-content in ecstasy tablets. It also flagged market changes such as detection of heroin processing laboratories in Europe and a greater diversification of trafficking routes and opioid products, which, combined with a substantial increase in opium production in Afghanistan, could reverse declines in heroin supply and stagnation of demand. Claim: EU drug agency sees no U.S.-like cannabis legalization moves.

Ex Output:
European Union countries are unlikely to legalize marijuana any time soon as some parts of the United States have done recently, EU drug monitoring agency chief Wolfgang Gotz said on Thursday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: No discussion of costs regarding mammograms. Stories should not assume that every woman in the 40s who chooses to get a mammogram will have this covered by their insurance. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for presenting lots of numbers – in contrast with the WebMD story that included NONE. However, more critical analysis would have been appreciated. The story did discuss why mammography in younger women is not always beneficial and described several of the harms that the US Preventive Services Task Force discussed. The article never pointed out that this was NOT a randomized controlled trial. The article also should have discussed: No disease mongering. The article did interview the chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). In allowing Dr. Virginia Moyer of the USPSTF to talk about the need for women “to make their own decision,” the story at least implies that declining screening is a choice. It could have been far more overt, but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt that the alternative choice was at least implied. Not applicable. Availability of mammograms is not in question although access to care is dependent upon many factors including distance to facility with instrument, insurance coverage, etc. The story at least acknowledged some past studies in the ongoing debate about “the best age to start routine mammograms and the best screening interval.” It appears that the story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Mammograms Can Save Lives of Women in Their 40s: Study

Ex Output:

Although the article presents some interesting new findings regarding mammogram for women in their 40s, the article lacks a strong critical analysis to point out the weaknesses with the current study. Since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force published their revised recommendations in November of 2009, many women between the ages of 40-49 have continued to be confused about what the evidence shows and what they should do. News organizations that continue to report each new study on one side of the debate or the other should try to dedicate a considerable chunk of the story to an info-graphic or fact box to guide shared decision-making.