Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[EX Q]: The health department said at least 16 patients admitted to the 210-bed Mount Carmel Grove City hospital after its opening April 28 have been diagnosed with Legionnaires’. The disease is a severe form of pneumonia that’s caused by inhaling tiny water droplets containing the legionella bacteria. One of the patients, a 75-year-old woman, died. Hospital president Sean McKibben said in a statement Thursday that the disease outbreak happened because of inadequate disinfection of the hot water system prior to the hospital’s opening. He said a permanent supplemental disinfection system with constant monitoring and controls has been installed. ___ Information from: The Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com
[EX A]: Outbreak of Legionnaire’s blamed on hot water system.

[EX Q]: The 40-year-old woman had traveled nearly 500 kilometers (289 miles) from Beni, despite having been identified by health officials as having been exposed to Ebola and warned not to travel. Her case was confirmed in Ariwara, Congo, about 70 kilometers (43 miles) from the border with South Sudan’s Yei River State, according to a report from South Sudan’s health ministry that was viewed Tuesday by The Associated Press. It is the closest confirmed case to South Sudan since the outbreak began in Congo last August, according to an official with close knowledge of the outbreak who spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak on the record. People who have come into contact with Ebola patients are supposed to be monitored for 21 days, the incubation period during which symptoms can emerge after exposure. Long-distance travel, particularly to regions bordering other vulnerable countries, is not recommended. More than 1,500 people have died in Congo since the epidemic began, and two other fatal cases were reported in Uganda after a family sickened in Congo returned home across the border. While no other fatalities have emerged since the scare, fears remain high that Ebola could spread through the impoverished region where people are often mobile and difficult to trace. While authorities in South Sudan have been preparing for possible spread of Ebola case across the border, the country still remains far less prepared than Uganda. A five-year civil war in South Sudan has killed nearly 400,000 people and the health system is weak. Contact tracing is critical to stopping the disease’s spread, but those efforts in South Sudan would be complicated by the fact more than 4 million people have been displaced by the war. Medical facilities, which were already far more basic than those in Congo or Uganda, have been further weakened during the conflict. The outbreak is now the second deadliest in history, surpassed only by the 2014-2016 epidemic in West Africa that caused more than 11,300 deaths. While there is an experimental vaccine that has shown a high level of protection, efforts to vaccinate people in eastern Congo have been complicated by instability. The region where the outbreak began has been plagued for decades by violence from rebel groups and armed militias. The population remains highly distrustful of the Congolese government and the health authorities now trying to fight the disease. Major international health charities have had to curtail their work following deadly attacks on treatment centers and assaults on health teams in the field. ___ Mednick reported from Bujumbura, Burundi. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa
[EX A]: Ebola case reported not far from South Sudan border.

[EX Q]: "During his widely watched monologue about his newborn son’s recent medical emergency, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel offered a bit of praise for one group of Americans that doesn’t receive much love these days: members of Congress. ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Is that what happened? Basically, yes. Kimmel has a point that by approving the increase, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress rebuked Trump’s proposal and made clear a distaste for cutting NIH. Budget experts, however, may quibble that Kimmel oversimplified a bit on the numbers. First, some background. NIH conducts and disseminates research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention and cure of human diseases. It is a collection of 27 separate institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Explaining Kimmel’s comment starts with the release earlier this year of the Trump White House’s budget blueprint. While this proposal did not offer significant detail, it did include a cut for NIH. Specifically, the proposal would reduce spending for fiscal year 2018 by $5.8 billion compared to the fiscal 2017 level, through a range of reorganizations, consolidations and other changes. That’s short of a $6 billion cut, as Kimmel described it, but it’s pretty close. Fast-forward a few weeks to congressional negotiations over a bill to keep the government funded and avoid a government shutdown. Under the agreement reached by lawmakers, NIH would see a $2 billion increase in its budget over the five-month period of extended federal spending. (That's on top of the funding that was already expected.) According to news reports, the agreement provides an additional $400 million for Alzheimer’s disease and an additional $476 million for the National Cancer Institute, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and an additional $110 million for the BRAIN Initiative, which aims to map the human brain. Where Kimmel oversimplified matters is on the numbers. Specifically, the $2 billion increase did not directly replace Trump’s $5.8 billion proposed cut -- the two actions are distinct, since they targeted two different fiscal years. It would have been more accurate to say that the $2 billion increase directly rejected a separate Trump proposal to cut $1.2 billion from NIH for the remainder of fiscal 2017, which concludes at the end of September. (Remember, the $5.8 billion cut was to be for the 2018 fiscal year, not for the rest of 2017.) Indeed, the Trump proposal to cut NIH by $5.8 billion in 2018 is still officially on the table since Congress hasn’t yet acted on spending for 2018. The agreement Kimmel cited only addresses a five-month extension of federal spending. That said, Kimmel’s overarching point -- that Congress effectively rejected Trump’s proposal to cut NIH -- is on target, experts say. Steve Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed that while Kimmel oversimplified the numbers, he added that the talk show host’s ""overall message is accurate. The administration sought cuts and Congress boosted the funding."" And the decision to protect NIH in the budget has been supported not just by Democrats but also by key Republicans, including the chairmen of the two chambers’ health appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ""There is no appetite on the Hill for cutting NIH,"" Stan Collender, a budget expert at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP, told PolitiFact. Our ruling Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up."
[EX A]:
President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion.