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.

[Q]: Paragraph: "Campaigning for president in the liberal oasis of Madison, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rose to the defense of marijuana. Critical of the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders said the lives of millions of Americans have been ""ruined"" because they got a police record for possessing marijuana. ""Today, under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin. That is nuts,"" Sanders declared March 26, 2016, 10 days before he defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary. ""Now people can argue -- although I suspect in this audience there may not be much of an argument -- about the pluses and minuses of marijuana,"" he said, drawing cheers from some of the thousands in attendance at the Alliant Energy Center. ""But everybody knows marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Sanders then noted he had introduced legislation to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act because possession of it ""should not be a federal crime."" We found that Sanders wasn’t smoking anything funny in claiming that both marijuana and heroin are Schedule I drugs, which he has continued to say while campaigning in New York and Pennsylvania. But his claim is somewhat misleading: That classification is based on a drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential, not on criminal statutes. The law The Controlled Substance Act, adopted in 1970, uses five schedules to classify drugs and narcotics by medical use and potential to incite substance abuse. On the low end is Schedule V, which includes substances such as cough medicines with small amounts of the narcotic codeine. At the high end is Schedule I, which lists the ""most dangerous"" drugs -- those that have ""no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."" Marijuana is stronger than when the Controlled Substance Act was adopted (as ex-GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina correctly stated). Nevertheless Schedule II includes some drugs often considered more dangerous than marijuana. Here’s a look at some of the drugs in the two schedules: Schedule I Schedule II Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Methamphetamine LSD Methadone Ecstasy OxyContin Peyote Fentanyl The Huffington Post in April 2016, citing figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the nation recorded no marijuana overdose deaths in 2015. Likewise, there were zero in 2014. It’s possible marijuana might soon be moved off of Schedule I. A week after Sanders’ speech, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said it hopes to decide by July 2016 whether to change the federal status of marijuana. Now let’s get to Sanders’ implication that the schedule relates to criminal law enforcement. Marijuana treated differently Distribution, manufacturing or possession of a Schedule I substance is indeed a federal offense. Additionally, marijuana being on Schedule I, drug policy experts told us, makes it more difficult for licensed dealers in states that have legalized marijuana or medical marijuana to get bank accounts and to deduct business expenses on their taxes. And the classification makes it more difficult for researchers to study marijuana in clinical trials. But judges come down harder on heroin possession than marijuana possession. And when it comes to enforcement of criminal statutes, the federal government to some extent has looked the other way when it comes to marijuana. As PolitiFact National stated in a related fact check: Schedule I substances cannot legally be used for medical purposes, however, 20 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. In 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, told federal law enforcement agencies to stop targeting medical marijuana dispensaries, signaling a change from the approach of Obama’s predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush. Similarly, in 2013, the Department of Justice said it would not target new laws in Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational marijuana. While Sanders equates the handling or marijuana and heroin, it’s difficult to imagine the federal government not enforcing the law if states started legalizing heroin. Our rating Criticizing the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn’t treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is . Claim: "Under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."
[A]: "Criticizing the nation’s war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn’t treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification. 


[Q]: Paragraph: The Texas woman’s name is Cathy Flanders and she has been on a crusade to bring the problem of indoor pollution from candles to the forefront. She has filed a lawsuit against the store that sold her candles which she says resulted in toxic levels of lead in her home and with serious medical consequences on her family. Regardless of the merits of her case, it is true that indoor pollution from certain kinds of candles is becoming a focus of research and is one of the hot topics right now among professionals concerned with health issues in the home. Not all the researchers are focused on lead and there are some who say they feel the danger from lead is reduced by the fact that U.S. candle makers have not used lead in candles for more than 25 years. There is increased focus on what researchers say is a significant contribution of candles to soot residue in buildings, more than has previously been realized, and to what extent that soot can contribute to health problems. While that is being studied, pollution experts recommend choosing candles from U.S. manufacturers that are made of hard wax, have low aromatic properties, burn with a low, even flame and with wicks that burn down evenly with the rest of the candle. They also recommend keeping burning candles out of drafts and not allowing an extinguished candle to continue emitting smoke. For more information: CNN Article about Cathy Flanders Article about Black Soot in the Home from the Environmental Illness Society of Canada  Comments Claim:  An email is making the rounds that talks about a woman in Texas whose family has experienced a variety of health problems which she says are due to the lead content of some candles.  The email warns that burning candles in the home can lead to health problems.      
[A]: Beware of potential pollution from certain candles 


[Q]: Paragraph: It is too early in the development of this experimental technology to begin talking about what the price of such a system might be. But readers would have gotten a clearer idea of the preliminary state of this work if the story had noted that the brain mapping, device implantation, sophisticated equipment and hundreds of hours of training probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This article included important caveats about the limited actions that the patient was able to perform, and made it clear that this device was highly experimental. But most of these details are mentioned only near the end of the story. We might have given the story a Satisfactory rating if the headline and opening paragraphs had matched the tone of these later sections. However, the overly broad claims at the top of the story overwhelm the cautionary details. Also, the story should have more clearly pointed out that (as a Nature news article specifically noted) this approach may not work for people who, unlike this patient, don’t still have at least some ability to move their shoulders and elbows. As a result, the story implies that this experiment is relevant to a far broader group of people than the researchers claim. Even if the technology is experimental and only tested on one patient, the story should have included some discussion of risks of the implantation surgery and the implant itself. We will give the story a Satisfactory rating here because it’s made clear that this is a study of one person. Readers who pay attention all the way to the end are indeed warned about how far this line of work is from producing a useful option for real-world use. However, the story would have been better if–instead of boasting that the patient can play “Guitar Hero”–the headline and opening paragraphs had been clearer that he could produce a limited range of finger and hand motions in painstakingly prepared laboratory conditions that, rather than revealing a useful device, demonstrate that the goal of a useful device is probably not impossible someday. Paralysis from spinal cord injuries is a devastating condition, so the story is not overstating the situation facing patients. The story includes strong context and cautionary statements from two independent sources. However, we cannot give it a Satisfactory rating because it doesn’t tell readers that the researchers have an interest in patents for the hardware and software they are developing. These financial interests were clearly noted in the Nature journal article and should have been included in the story. This experimental device does appear to allow this patient to do things that no other treatment can. However, the main achievement is a proof of concept. Unfortunately, the story makes the difference between his baseline function and his movements in the laboratory appear bigger than it is. The story is clear that this device is in laboratory testing. The comments from independent sources at the very end of the story help describe the long and uncertain road ahead for researchers. The story describes the specific new achievement of this experimental device: sensing electrical patterns in the brain and then translating them to electrical stimuli that trigger appropriate muscle movements. The story includes comments from independent sources and does not rely solely on a news release. Claim: A Paralysed Man Can Play “Guitar Hero” Using A Computer That Reads His Thoughts
[A]:
This is a story about a case study involving one man with a specific type of partial paralysis, who regained some motion via an experimental device implanted in his brain and connected to a device worn on his arm. The case study is undoubtedly newsworthy, but BuzzFeed’s coverage was unbalanced. It starts off with a “be amazed” tone, skipping over important nuances about the technology and the man’s limited skills. For example, the headline blares that a mind-reading computer allows the man to play “Guitar Hero.” Only much later in the story do we get important details and caveats, ending on a “be disappointed” tone. As well, the story should have told readers that the lead researchers have an interest in patents associated with the hardware and software they are developing. Be amazed. Be disappointed. That’s the cycle that stories like this put us through. The achievement presented by these researchers is remarkable; they demonstrated that this line of work may someday produce something of benefit to some people with certain types of paralysis. But overselling the achievement as a mind-reading computer that gave a paralyzed man the ability to play “Guitar Hero” (a challenge for many able-bodied readers) gives us a false high and sets us up for a crash. It undermines the credibility of science and medical reports.