TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "In a discussion on MSNBC's  Hardball  program about whether the government ought to consider prosecuting people involved in enhanced interrogation techniques used on some terror suspects, former U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, argued that the issue really comes down to waterboarding. ""And,"" he said, ""waterboarding is not torture."" In fact, said Hunter, a Vietnam veteran and former candidate for president, ""We waterboard, incidentally, hundreds of our own military personnel. They waterboard themselves in training to toughen themselves up."" He added, ""The Geneva Convention .. .was analyzed by the lawyers in place, and they came to the conclusion, especially about waterboarding, because that's the primary thing, that, since we do it to our own soldiers, by the hundreds, incidentally, and it doesn't hurt them, and they — and it makes them tougher, and it doesn't hurt anybody — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gained weight after he was waterboarded — we decided that, since we do that to our own soldiers in training... we‘re not going to consider that torture. "" Hunter later challenged host Chris Matthews saying, ""But the point is, if we do it, are we torturing American soldiers? You have to answer yes if you consider waterboarding to be torture."" Matthews said the difference is that U.S. service people know they are in training. They know they aren't going to be killed. ""That captured person who is one of our enemies has no idea what we‘re doing when we submit him to water torture."" Said Hunter: ""If we use it with our own soldiers in training, as we do waterboarding, then it should be allowed with people who have killed thousands of Americans."" We decided to examine Hunter's claim about waterboarding our service personnel as part of their training and found that he is right. U.S. special operations troops have, in the past, sometimes used a form of waterboarding as part of survival exercises, called Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training. The idea is to prepare them in the event they are ever captured and interrogated with such means. According to reports in the  New York Times  and  Vanity Fair,  the CIA adopted some of the interrogation techniques used on terror suspects from that SERE training, including the use of waterboarding. According to the  Vanity Fair  story, three-week SERE training for the U.S. soldiers included waterboarding, forced nudity, extreme temperatures, sexual and religious ridicule, agonizing stress positions, and starvation-level rations. The story quotes Michael Rolince, former section chief of the FBI's International Terrorism Operations: ""You're not going to die, but you think you are."" But while the techniques may have been derived from SERE training, a different, more intense brand of waterboarding was used on terror suspects, according to recently released CIA documents. According to a May 7, 2004, CIA Inspector General special report on interrogation techniques used on terror suspects, which has some parts redacted, ""OIG’s (Office of the Inspector General's) review of the videotapes revealed that the waterboard technique employed at (redacted) was different from the technique as described in the DoJ (Department of Justice) opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE School and in the DoJ opinion, the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contest, the Agency interrogator (redacted) continuously applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique differed from that used in SERE training and explained that the Agency’s technique is different because it is 'for real' and is more poignant and convincing."" The report also says the CIA's Office of Medical Services has characterized the SERE waterboarding as ""so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant."" The office said its frequency and intensity raised questions about whether it was effective or medically safe. So we think Hunter misleads a bit by equating waterboarding in training of military personnel with the technique used on terror suspects. According to the CIA inspector general's report, the technique used on the suspects was more powerful and convincing. And in the case of one terror suspect, it was used 183 times, often in rapid succession. So to argue the technique isn't torture because it is used on American servicemen as part of training ignores that it was not used in the same way. Still, Hunter is correct that the U.S. military has waterboarded servicemen as part of survival training. And so we rule his statement ." Claim: We waterboard, incidentally, hundreds of our own military personnel. They waterboard themselves in training to toughen themselves up.

SOLUTION: Duncan Hunter says we have waterboarded our own military as part of training exercises

PROBLEM: Paragraph: McLaren Flint Hospital on Friday requested an administrative hearing before the state enforces the terms of an order over issues with the bacteria that causes Legionnaires’ disease. The Flint Journal reports McLaren’s attorneys say the order issued Wednesday by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs contains allegations, findings and conclusions that are untrue. Flint, while under state financial management, switched to the Flint River for water in 2014 without treating it to reduce corrosion. Lead leached from pipes, contaminating the system. At the same time, a deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreak occurred that led to criminal charges against government officials. ___ Information from: The Flint Journal, http://www.mlive.com/flint Claim: Flint hospital wants hearing on order over Legionella risks.

SOLUTION: A Flint hospital ordered by the state to take steps to reduce the risk of exposure to Legionella bacteria wants a hearing on the matter.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Some legal experts believe Bayer will have a tough time convincing appellate courts to throw out verdicts and lawsuits on those grounds. Bayer has a better shot if a business-friendly U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case, experts said. But that could take years. Bayer has come under intensifying pressure after a third consecutive U.S. jury on Monday found Roundup to be carcinogenic, awarding more than $2 billion to a couple who used  the chemical on their property - the largest verdict in the glyphosate litigation to date. Bayer, which inherited the Roundup litigation with its $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto last year, faces lawsuits by more than 13,400 plaintiffs nationwide, alleging the product causes cancer. The Germany-based company’s shares have been hammered since the first Roundup cancer verdict against it last August, wiping out some 40 billion euros ($44.76 billion) in market value and leaving Bayer worth less than the price it paid for Monsanto. Bayer denies that Roundup causes cancer, saying decades of studies have shown glyphosate and the weed killer to be safe. On Wednesday, the company said it will argue that the lawsuits, which are brought under state law, conflict with guidance from a federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On April 30, the EPA reaffirmed prior guidance saying that glyphosate is not a carcinogen and not a risk to public health when used in accordance with its current label.. Citing the EPA decision, Bayer has repeatedly rebuked plaintiffs’ calls to add a cancer warning to Roundup, saying the agency would reject that change. Under the legal doctrine of preemption, state law claims are barred if they conflict with federal law. “We have very strong arguments that the claims here are preempted ... and the recent EPA registration decision is an important aspect of that defense,” William Hoffman, one of Bayer’s lawyers, said during a call with reporters on Wednesday. Hoffman said the argument applied to all U.S. Roundup lawsuits. Preemption is generally regarded as a “silver bullet defense” because it stops claims across the board, said Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. But Zimmerman and three other legal experts agreed that Bayer faces a big hurdle convincing appeals courts that the EPA determination on glyphosate shields it from state law claims. They cited a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA’s approval of a product does not necessarily bar state law claims. The ruling, Bates v Dow Agrosciences, gives broad leeway to juries to decide if such claims should proceed, they said. Judges in the three Roundup cases that have gone to trial against Monsanto all rejected the company’s preemption argument, citing this ruling. “In light of the Bates decision, it’s going to be an uphill battle for the company to win on preemption on appeal,” Zimmerman said. Bayer also said it will argue on appeal that trial courts improperly admitted evidence that was not backed up by science. But legal experts said appellate courts generally defer to lower court evidentiary rulings. Lars Noah, a law professor at the University of Florida, said Bayer’s chances of success would increase significantly if the Supreme Court takes up the Roundup appeals. The high court only accepts around 70 cases each year, but a business-friendly majority on the court could be inclined to hear the dispute, said Alexandra Lahav, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. Since 2005, the high court has decided at least three preemption cases in favor of companies, none of which involved the EPA. The Supreme Court will soon rule in another case that rests on whether a U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval preempts tort claims. In that case, plaintiffs sued Merck & Co over the company’s alleged failure to warn of the risk of serious bone fractures associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax. Merck, which denies the allegations, argued the lawsuits should be preempted because the FDA did not require an additional fracture warning in the drug’s prescribing information. During a January hearing, the Justices appeared to side with the company. Bayer in a statement on Thursday said it does not believe the 2005 Bates ruling posed a barrier for the appellate courts due to other Supreme Court rulings since then. Noah agreed that the Court has more recently signaled its appetite to limit lawsuits that contradict opinions by experts at regulatory agencies. “The Bates decision by now sticks out like a sore thumb,” Noah said. “Bayer has more than enough ammunition in recent Supreme Court cases to show the trial court judges got it wrong.” Claim: Bayer bets on 'silver bullet' defense in Roundup litigation; experts see hurdles.

SOLUTION:
Bayer AG plans to argue that a $2 billion jury award and thousands of U.S. lawsuits claiming its glyphosate-based weed killer Roundup causes cancer should be tossed because a U.S. regulatory agency said the herbicide is not a public health risk.