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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Novacyt said the FDA’s approval meant that hospitals and laboratories in the United States would be able to use the test for clinical diagnosis of the coronavirus, and that the test was now available for immediate distribution in the U.S. market. “The U.S. FDA EUA authorization is another important endorsement of the performance and quality of our COVID-19 test and demonstrates once again Novacyt’s growing role in tackling this pandemic,” said Novacyt CEO Graham Mullis. Claim: Healthcare group Novacyt wins U.S. approval for coronavirus test.
Example Output: Novacyt, a healthcare company specializing in clinical diagnostics, announced on Monday approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulator for its product aimed at testing for coronavirus.

Example Input: Paragraph: The idea that the domestic dog descended from the grey wolf was originally established in 1993 using comparisons of wolf and dog mitochondrial DNA. This investigation showed that no other living animal was more closely related to the domestic dog than the grey wolf: “The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the grey wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of [mitochondrial DNA].” Mitochondrial DNA is passed down by the mother (without any genetic contribution from the father) and changes only through random mutations that occur from generation to generation. Scientists use this much smaller and separate DNA sequence to estimate when populations of animals first diverged and to estimate the evolutionary relationships between organisms. By the mid-2000s, new technology allowed scientists to map the much longer DNA sequence found on the chromosomes of wolves and dogs — the genes that actually code for physical traits and behaviors. These studies demonstrated a 99.9% similarity (technically 99.96%) between dog and grey wolf, as covered in a 2007 review paper on the topic: In general, the domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the grey wolf, from which it differs by only ~0.04% in nuclear coding-DNA sequence, and no dog [mitochondrial DNA] sequences have been found that show closer kinship to other canid species. This similarity is so profound that hybridization often occurs between dogs and wolves. By the biological definition of species, this would mean that the domestic dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf (canis lupus familiaris). There remains some debate, however, as to what the appropriate classification for the domestic dog would be, with some arguing that the domestic dog should be its own distinct species (canis familiaris). Claim: Dogs and wolves are genetically 99.9% identical.
Example Output: These advances in genetic analysis have allowed scientists as well to pin down the probable timing of the split between these two canid lineages. A study published in 2015, which compared the whole genome sequence of dogs to a 35,000 year old Siberian wolf specimen, suggested the split likely occurred between 27,000 and 40,000 years ago, and that domestic dogs are likely themselves the descendants of a now extinct descendant of grey wolves.

Example Input: Paragraph: "The story provided an estimate for the cost of the treatment as well as the reminder that the costs for the doctor’s visit also needed to be factored in. The story provided some idea of the magnitude of benefit from the use of this drug – significantly more people using this medication were able to abstain from drinking entirely for at least 28 days out of the 98 days of the study. Similarly, there was also a reduction of the average 11  drinks per day to 6 1/2 drinks per day for those using this medication as compared with 7 1/2 for those in the placebo group. The inclusion of the anecdotal report of someone who remained sober years after taking the drug implies a duration of effect well beyond the duration of this study: 3 1/2 months. While there is no formal exaggeration of the effect, a cheery anecdote may falsely raise expectations in the reader. The story did mention some of the unpleasant side effects that people taking the drug experienced; although it did not provide information about how frequently they occurred, it mentioned that 20% of the people dropped out of the study which provides a composite of sorts. The story did a fine job reporting on the results of the study; it is clear from the story that only 15% of the people who took the drug quit drinking during the course of the study but that the difference in the average number of drinks per day though lower in the drug treated group, were really not very different than that of the placebo group. While there is no ""disease mongering"" in the sense of exaggerating the scope of the problem, there is implication in this report that the drug under study is more widely applicable than the study demonstrates. The study author was quoted as saying you ""can come in drinking a bottle of scotch a day and get treatment without detox."" In this study, patients who experienced significant withdrawal symptoms with cessation were excluded, as were those who had multiple unsuccessful attempts in the past to stop drinking in inpatient programs. Experts in the field who were not associated with this study were quoted in the story. In addition, the story clearly indicated that the study was funded by the maker of the drug. Although the story did not name names, it did mention that there were three other medications currently approved for use in the treatment of alcoholism. The story couched one benefit for use of the study drug as something for people who want to see their ""own doctors, rather than enter a rehab clinic to dry out."" This is misleading as it makes it seem as though for the other medications currently approved for the treatment of alcoholism, it is necessary to attend a specialized alcohol treatment program. The story did not mention any 12-step programs that some use for treating alcoholism. The story made clear that the drug Topamax is not FDA approved for the treatment of alcoholism but that physicians are free to prescribe it for such use. The story was clear that this is a new use for a prescription medication currently on the market for other uses. Does not appear to rely on a press release." Claim: Alcoholics see hope in new pill
Example Output:
First, this story was a shortened version of the original Associated Press story (The Houston paper trimmed the last 9 paragraphs of the original.) Still, even as is, the article provided a very good outline of the results from a recently published study on a clinical trial designed to examine whether Topamax has merit for the treatment of alcoholism. It addressed every one of the criteria that we believe ought to be included in a story on a medical treatment. While presenting the potential for hope, the article was very grounded. It was clear  to indicate that the medication had common side effects that were sufficiently noxious that 20% of the people taking the medication discontinued doing so. It was also apparent from the story that not everyone using the medication was successful at eliminating alcohol consumption. By providing numbers, it was also clear  that the average number of drinks per day was only slightly less for those taking the medication than those taking the placebo. Good job!