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: "There was no discussion of costs of vegetable consumption. Although this could be considered general knowledge, mention of typical costs for vegetables would have been a nice addition. The research on which this story was based compared increasing amounts of vegetable (or fruit and vegetable, or fruit) intake with intake of 0 – 1.1 servings per day. The study actually only found a statistically significant improvement in the rate of decline for individuals eating 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with “more than two servings of vegetables per day"" – which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing 5 years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline   It would have been helpful to provide some idea of the difference this actually represents. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. This story was not actually about a treatment per se but rather about the possible association between an eating pattern and age-related decline in function. This story reported on a prospective study of cognitive decline in older individuals. Although it did not explicitly mention the nature of the study design, the story included the caveat that the findings don’t prove that vegetables reduce mental decline, but add to mounting evidence pointing in that direction. The story would have been stronger if it had included information on the methodology for assessing dietary intake. No obvious elements of disease-mongering The story used several different sources. This story did not discuss other means to delay or diminish the rate of cognitive decline with age. This story reported on a study of vegetable and fruit consumption in older adults in the Chicago area – vegetables and fruits that are clearly widely available. The story begins, ""New research on vegetables and aging gives mothers another reason to say 'I told you so.' ""  Clearly, this is not a new idea, but the story is about new evidence. Because the story used multiple sources, it does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release." Claim: Study: Vegetables may keep brains young
[EX A]: This story presented the results from a recent study which found a slower decline in mental sharpness in older people who ate 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day than in people who ate 0 – 1.1 servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with “more than two servings of vegetables per day” – which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing five years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline. It would have been more helpful to frame for the reader the amount of mental decline typically seen in the age group studied, what the decline represents in terms of function, and the amount of potential for benefit to be gained through increased vegetable consumption. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. It was useful that the story pointed out that the research found an association between vegetable intake but not for fruit intake. Although the standard wisdom is to eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, this story provides a distinction between these two for readers to consider. It would have been useful for the story to provide a little more clarity about the definition of ‘vegetable’ for the reader. This study was interesting in that, unlike the USDA, it did not include potatoes in its vegetable count. In addition, it should be pointed out that whereas the FDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends the equivalent of four to 13 servings a day of vegetables and fruit in a typical 2,000 calorie diet, the benefit in this study was seen at a much lower level –  2.5 servings/day of vegetable consumption.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: It’s one small way the dairy industry is fighting to slow the persistent decline in U.S. milk consumption as eating habits change and rival drinks keep popping up on supermarket shelves. At a high school in North Dakota, a $5,000 grant from a dairy group helped pay for an espresso machine that makes lattes with about 8 ounces of milk each. The drinks used 530 gallons of milk this year. “We buy a lot of milk,” said Lynelle Johnson, the food service director for the Williston Public School District. It’s not clear how much coffee drinks in high schools might help boost milk consumption, or whether the concept will gain traction across the country. But with consumption of milk in the U.S. down 40 percent since 1975, the dairy industry is looking for all the help it can get. The industry famous for its “Got Milk” advertising campaign is hoping its newer “Undeniably Dairy” slogan will help fend off the almond, oat and soy alternatives that are becoming more popular. And regional dairy groups are encouraging schools to serve milky drinks like smoothies and hot chocolate, as well as iced lattes. The efforts come as the dairy industry is also trying to adjust to changing views about diet and nutrition. With fat no longer seen as a dietary evil, skim milk has suffered the sharpest declines in demand in recent years. And it’s difficult for dairy producers to reduce production of skim milk because it is left over after making other products such as butter, cheese and ice cream. As skim milk becomes especially tough to sell, Organic Valley is even drying some of the surplus and mixing it back into low-fat and fat-free milk to boost the nutrients and make it creamier. “We’re just exploring everything we can,” said George Siemon, who was CEO of Organic Valley when the plans were developed, but has recently stepped down. The dairy industry blames rules that limit the fat content of milk in schools for consumption declines, arguing that generations of students are growing up disliking milk because of the watery taste of skim. In the meantime, it’s hoping lattes can make milk go down easier. In Florida, a dairy group said it paid for coffee carts in 21 high schools this past school year. In the Southwest, a dairy group gave grants to seven schools for coffee programs. Not all high school coffee bars get grants from dairy groups, and the money may only cover a small portion of costs. School food operators also say lattes offer other benefits, such as giving teens a reason to stay on school grounds. At a national convention for school lunch officials this month, one session will also detail how schools in Orange County, Florida used coffee drinks to get students to buy lunch. For an extra $2, students can turn the cup of milk served with lunch into a coffee drink at a nearby cart. Without the lunch, it costs $3. The Orange County schools did not receive industry grants for the coffee bars, but the local dairy council provided chalkboard-style signs and menus. Cafeteria directors and dairy groups say coffee drinks in schools have to follow nutrition standards, making them healthier than the lattes students would get anyway outside schools. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets rules for schools participating in its meal programs, says high schools can sell espresso drinks that are no bigger than 12 ounces, and that are made with fat-free or 1% milk. The drinks have around 150 calories, school food directors say. But not everyone thinks teens should drink coffee, or that they need milk. The American Academy of Pediatrics discourages caffeine consumption among children, citing potentially harmful effects on developing bodies. And while dairy is an efficient way to get calcium and vitamin D, it’s not the only way to get such nutrients, said Dr. Natalie Muth, a pediatrician and representative for the American Academy of Pediatrics. As for lattes, Muth said there are ways to encourage students to get the nutrients of milk without promoting caffeine habits that could lead to headaches, agitation and lack of sleep. “If they’re going to be having that outside of school, that’s one thing. But in schools, the idea is to promote good health and nutrition,” Muth said. Exactly how schools prepare coffee drinks can vary, but milk is a primary ingredient for lattes. “It’s really milk with some coffee, as far as proportion,” said Julie Ostrow of Midwest Dairy. It’s why the group is providing a grant for a coffee bar at a fourth high school in the Fort Zumwalt, Missouri district this upcoming year. In exchange, the group gets data on how much milk is used for the lattes, as well as information for personal pizzas, mozzarella sticks and other products with dairy. But the group might not be happy about one of the newer options: This past year, the coffee bars began offering almond milk for 40 cents extra, said Paul Becker, the district’s food director. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: To boost milk, dairy groups support high school coffee bars.
[EX A]: Coffee bars selling $3 iced lattes are popping up in high schools, helped along by dairy groups scrambling for new ways to get people to drink milk.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In 1976, U.S. President Gerald Ford signed off on the National Emergencies Act (NEA), federal legislation that ended all previous national states of emergency and formalized the process by which the President can declare states of emergencies and undertake special powers during those emergencies. In general, the President may initiate a state of emergency by issuing a declaration (typically via executive order). An existing state of emergency can be terminated by the President himself, or by a joint resolution by Congress. The President can veto such a resolution, however, requiring both houses of Congress to then override the veto by a two-thirds vote. When President Donald Trump hinted in early 2019 his intention to bypass Congress and secure funding for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border by declaring a national emergency — and then followed through on that plan — the subject of “national emergencies” suddenly became a hot topic of public discussion. Since the public tends to associate that term with dire threats such as terrorist attacks, epidemics, or the outbreak of war, many people were surprised to learn that several dozen national emergencies had been declared since the passage of the NEA in 1976 — as reflected in a viral social media post:  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at the time of President Trump’s declaration of a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States in February 2019, some 58 national emergencies had previously been declared by various presidents since 1979, with 31 of them still in effect as of February 2019. The gist of the social media post displayed above is therefore correct, in that every U.S. president since 1976 (excluding Gerald Ford, whose term ended in January 1977) has declared at least one national emergency, although we came up with some slightly different numbers. (Our tally based on the Brennan Center’s list has Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush each declaring one more emergency than stated above, and President Barack Obama declaring one fewer than stated.) In addition, the majority of those emergency declarations remain in effect as of this writing. The focus of these national emergencies has ranged from President Carter’s blocking Iranian government property after fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were taken hostage in Tehran in 1979 and President Reagan’s barring trade with Nicaragua in 1985, to President Clinton’s prohibiting transactions with terrorists who threatened to disrupt the Middle East peace process in 1995 and President Obama’s declaring an emergency over the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009. Claim: Every U.S. president since 1976 has declared at least one national emergency.
[EX A]:
In short, although many Americans may not have been aware of it at the beginning of 2019, the United States has been under one or more states of national emergency continuously for the last four decades.