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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The drones will spray a silicone-based liquid on rice paddies, where there are large expanses of stagnant water where malaria-carrying mosquitoes lay their eggs. The substance will spread across the water and prevent the eggs from hatching. It is hoped this will significantly reduce the numbers of the malaria-carrying anopheles mosquitoes in the area. The spraying by drones is a test to see if it will help the government of Zanzibar reach its goal of eliminating malaria on the archipelago by 2023, according to the strategic plan adopted by Zanzibar Malaria Elimination Program. The drone spraying is a relatively inexpensive way to stop the mosquitoes from reproducing, said Bart Knols, a medical entomologist and lead researcher of the program. “We are getting to the bottom of it as we will spray the breeding grounds of mosquitoes,” said Knols, who is with the Dutch Malaria Foundation. The drone will spray Aquatain, a liquid gel that will spread over a section of water and kill mosquitoes’ larvae, said Knols. The substance has been tested internationally and has been found to be harmless to non-target organisms, non-toxic and biodegradable. In the initial test, in the Cheju area of southern Zanzibar, the drone flew over and sprayed the shallow, sunlit water bodies in the rice paddies teeming with mosquito larvae, which were trapped as the gel spread across the water. Without the gel, the larvae would have emerged as adult mosquitoes in search of a blood meal. When those mosquitoes bite humans infected with malaria, they become vectors for the disease and continue its deadly transmission cycle. Along the Indian Ocean coast of East Africa, Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania have had a long, well-documented battle with malaria. In the last 10 years, Zanzibar, with a population of 1.2 million people, has embarked on different methods of fighting malaria. Thousands of mosquito nets have been distributed to put over beds and insecticide was supplied to spray in homes. The campaigns have succeeded in decreasing the disease’s prevalence. Some areas of Zanzibar have seen the prevalence of malaria drop from 40% of the population to less than 10%, according to the malaria elimination program. The spraying by drones is a new part of the strategy. The use of drones will be essential to efficiently spraying the large rice fields, which have been identified as malaria hot spots on Zanzibar. The drone is efficient because spraying by hand is very time consuming and using a helicopter is too expensive, said Eduardo Rodriguez of DJI, a Chinese drone manufacturer. With the help of drone pilots from the State University of Zanzibar, the DJI Agras drone is being tested to spray the rice paddies. “The ultimate vision of our fight against malaria is to bring malaria down to zero in year 2023 as our target,“said Abdullah Suleiman Ali, manager of the Zanzibar Malaria Elimination Program. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa Claim: Zanzibar tests drones spraying rice fields to fight malaria.

Output: For the first time drones are being tested to help fight malaria on the island of Zanzibar, off the coast of Tanzania.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: “Even though the majority of strokes and heart attacks occur in people who are 65 and older, studies have found that cholesterol-lowering drugs are not prescribed as often for older people as they are for younger people,” Dr. Seemant Chaturvedi of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, said in a statement. “These results show that using these drugs is just as beneficial for people who are over 65 as they are for younger people.”   In April, British researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that treating high blood pressure in people 80 and older cut their risk of fatal strokes and other heart problems. Statins cut the risk of heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of fatty substances such as low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also raise levels of high-density lipoprotein or “good” cholesterol. They include atorvastatin, made by Pfizer Inc under the brand name Lipitor; pravastatin or Pravachol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb; fluvastatin, made by Novartis AG under the brand name Lescol, and several others. Seemant and colleagues studied 4,731 people 18 and older who had a recent stroke or a mini-stroke as part of a study sponsored by Pfizer. About half were over 65, with an average age of 72. The other half were under 65 and had an average age of 54. In each age group, about half were taking Lipitor and the other half were on a placebo. The statin worked equally well in both groups, the researchers reported in the journal Neurology. It lowered LDL cholesterol by about 61 points in the group of older patients and by about 59 points in the younger age group. Stroke is the No. 3 killer in the United States behind heart disease and cancer. The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 780,000 Americans will have strokes this year. They will kill 150,000 people and permanently disable 15 percent to 30 percent of survivors. Claim: Statins fight stroke in older people too.

Output: Older people who have had a stroke or mini-stroke benefit from cholesterol-lowering statin drugs just as much as younger people do, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Hollywood star Matt Damon has been a champion of bringing clean water and sanitation to the world’s poor for many years, co-founding the group Water.org. The organization links families to microloans so they can tap into safe water supplies. In a conversation with the president of the World Bank, Damon tried to convey a sense of the severity of the problem. ""The poor often pay more for water than the middle class,"" Damon said. ""These people have no savings,  but they’re paying every day, in some cases, up to 25 percent of their income just for water."" People who live in poverty always spend most if not every penny of what little they earn on basic necessities. That is part of the crushing reality of being poor. But we wanted to know about the fraction of their income that goes toward water. The poor often pay more for #water than the middle class. They have no savings, but spend up to 25% of income for water. —Matt Damon @water pic.twitter.com/Ar98ZUOH6X Rosemary Gudelj, spokeswoman for Water.org, told us the statistic was based somewhat on anecdotal evidence. Gudelj said Damon drew on the work of the group’s co-founder Gary White. ""Gary’s statement has been, ‘I have met people who pay up to 25 percent of their income on water,’ "" Gudelj said. ""This comes from Gary’s experience in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, when doing research for his master’s thesis."" That might not seem like much to hang a claim on, but we did find a 2006 United Nations Development Program estimate that confirmed Damon’s point. ""In Uganda water payments represent as much as 22 percent of the average income of urban households in the poorest 20 percent of the income distribution,"" the report said. The report went on to say that in countries such as Argentina, El Salvador and Jamaica, the bottom fifth of households were spending over 10 percent of their money on water. The core problem, the report said, is the poorest families often pay the highest prices for water because they aren’t connected to the pipes that provide service to middle class and wealthy homes: ""In Jakarta, Lima, Manila and Nairobi households living in slums and low-­income settlements typically pay 5–10 times or more for their water than high-income residents of the same city. In Manila an estimated 4 million people receive water resold through kiosks, pushcart vendors or tanker deliveries."" Each of those middlemen take their cut, and the cost of water rises accordingly. Now, that United Nations report is a decade old and progress has been made since. But Damon avoided hard numbers and the risk that some would be outdated. Taken at face value, he only said that some people pay as much as 25 percent of their income on water. To know the reality, the gold standard would be household spending surveys from a range of countries. But it looks like current ones for water expenditures don’t exist. A report from the advocacy group WaterAid used a baseline assumption that someone was buying the 50 liters/day minimum for drinking water and and sanitation set by the World Health Organization in compiling hypothetical water bills for many countries. But Michael Hanemann, an economist who specializes in water at the University of California Berkeley, said that’s a dicey set of calculations. ""In economics it is the case that when something is expensive, people buy less of it,"" he told PolitiFact. ""It is more likely that they are getting by with less water."" Or as likely, they are using unclean water, and paying the price with illness and bad health. By the way, the average water and sewer bill in the United States is about 0.5 percent of household income, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Our ruling Damon said that poor people sometimes pay as much as 25 percent of their income for water. A decade-old United Nations report said that the urban poor in Uganda were paying very nearly that much, about 22 percent of their wages. Damon’s co-founder of Water.org has seen people spending this much in his work in Honduras. More recent hard data appears to be in short supply. But it wouldn’t take much for Damon’s claim to be accurate. Given that poor people pay an inordinate share of whatever money they have for basic needs, and they tend to live in places where water costs more, some people probably do spend as much as Damon said. The facts we have are enough for us to rate this claim ." Claim: "Poor people pay ""in some cases, up to 25 percent of (their) income for water."


Output: Damon said that poor people sometimes pay as much as 25 percent of their income for water. A decade-old United Nations report said that the urban poor in Uganda were paying very nearly that much, about 22 percent of their wages. Damon’s co-founder of Water.org has seen people spending this much in his work in Honduras. More recent hard data appears to be in short supply. But it wouldn’t take much for Damon’s claim to be accurate. Given that poor people pay an inordinate share of whatever money they have for basic needs, and they tend to live in places where water costs more, some people probably do spend as much as Damon said.