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: "Even in a city repeatedly scarred by senseless fatal shootings -- a 10-year-old girl caught in the crossfire at a playground, a toddler struck by a bullet aimed at the wrong house -- this case stood out: A man driving his van in Milwaukee late on a Sunday afternoon struck and killed a 2-year-old boy who had darted into the street. He jumped out of the vehicle immediately and was grieving as he stood over the body. Moments later, a gunman, apparently enraged about the accident, shot the 40-year-old driver to death. But he also fatally wounded a 15-year-old, the toddler’s brother, who had rushed to the scene. Reacting to the incident, Mayor Tom Barrett linked increases in fatal and non-fatal shootings in Milwaukee with gun laws. In turn, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. criticized the mayor, saying Barrett was blaming concealed carry permit holders for more guns being on the street. Then, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, while speaking to reporters on April 14, 2015, two days after the accident and double-shooting, responded to the sheriff. ""We're the only place I know,"" Flynn said, referring to Wisconsin, ""where it's a misdemeanor to carry a gun illegally, but a felony for a second rap for carrying pot. Would you tell me how that makes sense? ""Second arrest for carrying pot is a felony. Second, third, fourth, 10th arrest for carrying a gun illegally is a misdemeanor. Is it any wonder these knuckleheads out there with guns aren't learning a lesson from getting locked up by us? ""​ Is Flynn right about the Wisconsin laws? Except for some clarification, yes. Marijuana Carrying marijuana -- for a second offense and subsequent offenses -- is, in fact, a felony crime. But that doesn't necessarily mean a felony charge will be filed. Prosecutors generally have discretion in charging. So, while someone with a clean criminal record who is caught a second time carrying a marijuana joint technically has committed a felony offense, a prosecutor might decide to only issue a ticket. It’s also worth noting that carrying marijuana can be a felony on a first offense -- if you’re carrying with the intent to deliver, for instance. (Coincidentally, the day before Flynn made his claim, state Rep. Melissa Sargent, D-Madison, announced she would introduce a bill to legalize marijuana in Wisconsin. With Republicans controlling both houses of the Legislature, the measure has virtually no chance of passing.) Guns Wisconsin legalized the concealed carry of guns and other weapons in 2011. Carrying a concealed gun without a state-issued concealed carry license is a misdemeanor, for the first offense and for any subsequent offenses. It’s worth noting that someone convicted of any misdemeanor on three separate occasions within five years can be sentenced to more time behind bars. So, someone convicted of carrying a concealed gun illegally could be punished more if they are also convicted of two other misdemeanors, whether gun-related or not, within five years. In addition, for certain people, carrying a gun is a felony on the first offense. That includes convicted felons and people who are subject to an injunction such as a domestic violence restraining order. Our rating Flynn said that in Wisconsin, a ""second arrest for carrying pot is a felony,"" but a second or subsequent arrest ""for carrying a gun illegally is a misdemeanor."" A second arrest for carrying marijuana is classified as a felony offense, although depending on the circumstances, only a ticket might be issued. And generally a first or subsequent offense for carrying a gun illegally is a misdemeanor -- although for some people, such as convicted felons, a first offense is a felony. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is . To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page." Claim: "In Wisconsin, a ""second arrest for carrying pot is a felony,"" but a second or subsequent arrest ""for carrying a gun illegally is a misdemeanor."

Ex Output:
"Flynn said that in Wisconsin, a ""second arrest for carrying pot is a felony,"" but a second or subsequent arrest ""for carrying a gun illegally is a misdemeanor."" A second arrest for carrying marijuana is classified as a felony offense, although depending on the circumstances, only a ticket might be issued. And generally a first or subsequent offense for carrying a gun illegally is a misdemeanor -- although for some people, such as convicted felons, a first offense is a felony. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Although Pfizer continues to test the drug, called dacomitinib, in another Phase III study, hopes for its success have now largely faded, according to ISI Group analyst Mark Schoenebaum. “We believe consensus expectations (for the drug) will be close to zero given today’s readout” of unsuccessful trial results, Schoenebaum said in a research note. In one of the failed trials, called ARCHER 1009, patients given Pfizer’s once-daily pill did not show improved survival without the cancer worsening, compared with Roche Holding AG’s widely used Tarceva (erlotinib). Tarceva is the current standard of care in patients with mutated forms of a protein called Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR). The protein plays a role in normal regulation of cell growth, but when mutated is believed to cause cells to proliferate and thereby help spur various types of cancer. Dacomitinib is designed to block several types of Epidermal Growth Factor receptors, while Tarceva and similar treatments for lung cancer target only one type of receptor. Cowen and Co had forecast annual sales of $500 million by 2020 for dacomitinib, if it were approved for lung cancer. That would make it a moderate-sized product for Pfizer, the largest U.S. drugmaker, which has annual revenue of $50 billion. Schoenebaum said there has been little investor interest in the drug and that Wall Street had expected it to generate annual sales of only $300 million by 2018. The second failed trial, named BR.26, involved patients that previously had failed to benefit from chemotherapy as well as from treatment with an EGFR inhibitor. Overall survival of patients taking the Pfizer drug was not prolonged in the study, compared with patients given a placebo. Pfizer said adverse events seen with dacomitinib were consistent with those seen in smaller earlier studies. In the meantime, Pfizer said dacomitinib is also being tested in a third late-stage trial, called ARCHER 1050, among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who have not received prior treatment. The study will compare dacomitinib with Iressa (gefitinib), an EGFR inhibitor sold by AstraZeneca Plc. Results from that study are expected in 2015. Pfizer shares were little changed in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Claim: Pfizer lung cancer drug fails in two large studies.

Ex Output:
Pfizer Inc on Monday said one of its experimental drugs had failed to meet its goals in two late-stage studies among patients who had received prior treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, the most common form of the disease.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "In just over 24 hours, some 12,000 people shared a post from the Kenosha County Democratic party slamming the coronavirus vote by Wisconsin’s Republican congressional delegation. The emergency measure — which includes free testing for COVID-19, paid emergency leave and other emergency appropriations — easily passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 18, 2020. But it passed without much help from Wisconsin. The Kenosha Democrats seized on that fact in a March 19, 2020, Facebook post. The post explained the bill, commented on gerrymandering and noted the GOP no votes from purple Wisconsin went beyond the breakdown from even the deepest red of the red states. It was accompanied by a graphic with pictures of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and U.S. Reps. Mike Gallagher, Glenn Grothman, Jim Sensenbrenner and Bryan Steil that said this: ""WI is the ONLY state where all Republicans voted against protecting its citizens."" This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Let’s check it out. The bill passed 363-40 in the U.S. House and 90-8 in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, all five Republicans in the Wisconsin delegation cast a no vote, according to roll calls published by ProPublica. All four state Democrats voted for the bill. And, yes, that clean sweep of Republican votes was unique around the country. In Oklahoma both Republican senators voted against the bill, but two of three Republican representatives supported it. Iowa’s lone Republican representative voted no, but both Republican senators there supported the bill. That leaves us to look at the characterization that Wisconsin Republicans ""voted against protecting (the state’s) citizens""? Like anything in politics, it’s more complicated than that. In various statements issued after the votes, the state’s Republican lawmakers didn’t object to the concept of providing help amid the pandemic, but they took issue with numerous specifics in the bill and how the process was handled. Sensenbrenner objected to spending money on a bill that he said stretched 100 pages and was presented with less than 30 minutes to review. ""We do not know the full cost of this legislation,"" he said in a statement. ""I am not a fan of passing bills to find out what is in them."" Steil told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he voted against the bill because it ""places a heavy government mandate on Wisconsin small businesses that are already suffering negative consequences from coronavirus."" Gallagher echoed those comments in a statement, saying he feared the bill would hurt small businesses. ""This bill, while well-intentioned, contains a number of unclear provisions that could force small businesses in Northeast Wisconsin to lay off workers or cause them to close their doors altogether,"" Gallagher said. ""Let me be clear: H.R. 6201 contained a number of good provisions like free testing that we’ve already successfully fought for. But I have serious questions as to whether the best way to support those needing paid and sick leave is through tax credits to small businesses instead of direct payments to those affected."" Lori Hawkins, chair of the Kenosha County Democratic Party, defended the description in the Facebook post. She said the bill guided both testing and treatment to help control the spread of the disease. ""A 'no' vote by our elected officials was a vote against protecting their constituents from this highly contagious disease which has already been deadly to residents in Wisconsin,"" she said in an email. A viral Facebook post said Wisconsin ""is the only state where all Republicans voted against protecting its citizens."" It is indeed the only state where all Republicans opposed the bill, which has now become law. But it’s a bit of an exaggeration to summarize their decisions as a vote ""against protecting (Wisconsin) citizens."" And of course this is expected to be just the first of many bills addressing the coronavirus fallout." Claim: “Wisconsin is the only state where all Republicans voted against protecting its citizens.”

Ex Output:

Wisconsin is indeed the only one of the 50 states where all Republicans voted no. But it’s a bit of an exaggeration to describe that vote as “against protecting its citizens.”