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: On 21 January 2019, Slate published a article headlined “The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For.” That story highlighted significant changes to the definition of domestic violence appearing on website of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women office. An archived version of that website from April 2018 previously defined domestic violence as:  A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. By contrast, the current version of that same website encompasses only acts of physical violence under the definition of domestic violence:  The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. We reached out to the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) for an explanation on what motivated the change in the definition and whether that change was spurred by an actual change in law or policy. We received a response from Allison Randall, Chief of Staff for the OVW, that did not adequately answer either question. Her response is reproduced in full below:  The Department is strongly committed to enforcing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with the law enacted by Congress. Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission. By following the statute, the Department ensures the funds made available by Congress are employed in the most effective manner possible to reduce violence and to assist crime victims. In fiscal year 2018, OVW awarded a record $467 million under VAWA. President Trump’s request for fiscal year 2019 OVW funding was the largest ever requested. OVW discretionary grantees serve an average of 125,000 victims every six months and formula subgrantees serve over 400,000 victims each year. VAWA funding supports victim advocates who answer over a million hotline calls and provides over 2 million housing and shelter bed-nights for victims and their children annually. Every year, VAWA-funded professionals assist victims in securing more than 200,000 protection orders. The narrower definition employed in the current version of the OVW website stems from the definition provided in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as it relates to disbursing funds for VAWA grant programs. While it is true this narrow definition has not changed as it relates to the VAWA, it is unclear why the DOJ found it necessary to remove information about non-physical intimate partner violence. Writing in Slate, Natalie Nanasi, a Professor of Law and the Director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University, argued that:  A domestic violence relationship rarely begins with physical violence, much less violence that rises to the level of a crime. If you were punched on a first date, odds are there wouldn’t be a second. Intimate partner abuse is insidious: Emotional and psychological abuse escalates to physical violence as an abuser’s need and/or ability to exert power and control increases. In the United States today, more than half of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. If we do not acknowledge the “small” things — yelling or screaming, name-calling, and controlling or monitoring communication and social media — victims may not realize they are in danger until it is too late. In our response to the statement from OVW, we suggested that they had not provided any explanation for the change to their website and requested further clarification; if we receive such clarification, we will update our story. Claim: The DOJ changed the definition of domestic violence on their website without explanation.
Example Output: The Violence Against Women Act, which was extended by President Obama in 2013, expired at midnight on 22 December 2018 as a result of the 2018-19 federal government shutdown over funding for President Trump’s proposed border wall.

Example Input: Paragraph: In March 2020, as cities around the world announced “shelter-in-place” or “self-quarantine” orders in an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, social media users started to circulate an image that supposedly showed a newspaper clipping from 1918 with a similar announcement in the town of Kelowna, British Columbia:  The clipping reads: Public Notice. Notice is hearby given that, in order to prevent the spread of Spanish Influenza, all Schools, public and private, Churches, Theaters, Moving Picture Halls, Pool Rooms and other places of amusement, and Lodge meetings, are to be closed until further notice. All public gatherings consisting of 10 or more are prohibited. D. W. Sutherland, Mayor. Kelowna, B.C., 19 October 1918. This is a genuine newspaper clipping that was published in the Kelowna Record in 1918 as this Canadian town, as well as the rest of the world, fought to prevent the spread of the H1N1 virus, commonly and misleadingly called the “Spanish Flu.” The clipping was archived by the University of British Columbia and can be viewed here. Kelowna, of course, was not the only city to issue such an order. We searched the archives of Newspapers.com and found several similar announcements in cities across the United States. On Oct. 10, 1918, for instance, Des Moines, Iowa, Mayor Thomas P. Fairweather announced that “in order to prevent the spread of Spanish Influenza and to protect the public health and safety,” he was directing “all public places of amusement, including theaters, moving pictures houses, dance halls and public dancing places, pool and billiard halls, skating rinks, outdoor athletic events, all public congregating places subject to unusual congestion, be closed.”  Thu, Oct 10, 1918 – Page 6 · The Des Moines Register (Des Moines, Iowa) · Newspapers.com Mobile, Alabama, took these closures one step further. In addition to closing restaurants and businesses, Mobile also asked people to refrain from kissing:  Tue, Oct 8, 1918 – 10 · Knoxville Sentinel (Knoxville, Tennessee) · Newspapers.com In 1918, just like today, individual cities and states made the decision to close schools, businesses, and public gathering places. According to a recent study from the Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology, cities that implemented strict social guidelines during the early days of the 1918 pandemic saw lower transmission rates and reduced total mortalities. Claim: "A newspaper clipping from 1918 documents a ""public notice"" from the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, announcing that schools, movie theaters, and other public places would be closed to prevent the spread of ""Spanish Influenza."" "
Example Output: During the 1918-19 H1N1 “Spanish” influenza pandemic, which infected a fifth to a third of the world population, and during which 50 million people have died worldwide, including an estimated 675,000 Americans, the United States has adopted a range of nonpharmaceutical (public health) interventions. These measures, which were similar to those currently adopted, included closure of schools and churches, banning of mass gatherings, mandated mask wearing, case isolation, and disinfection/hygiene measures. However, these measures were not implemented at the same time or for the same duration in different cities, nor were they uniformly followed. A recent analysis concluded that in some cities (San Francisco, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Kansas City), where the measures were implemented early, they reduced transmission rates by up to 30–50%. Cities that implemented such measures earlier had greater delays in reaching peak mortality, and had lower peak mortality rates and lower total mortality. The duration that these “social distancing” measures were kept in place correlated with a reduced total mortality burden. Although we still have no known effective therapy or vaccine prevention for this coronavirus, and the world is a quite different place than it was 100 years ago, the efficacy of the measures instituted during the 1918-19 pandemic gives us hope that the current measures will also limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Example Input: Paragraph: Tropical storm Pabuk approached southern Thailand with winds of up to 65 kph (40 mph), bringing high waves and gusty winds ahead of its expected landfall on Friday. Bangkok Airways canceled all flights to and from popular holiday destination Koh Samui, potentially stranding tourists. Media also reported that ferry services to and from the island were suspended. The Thai Meteorological Department warned of heavy downpours and strong winds in several provinces, including those with popular island destinations such as Samui, Phuket and Krabi. Some hotel operators reported a few early checkouts and said they were prepared. “Since the morning we have prepared sand bunkers and we have barricaded glass windows. We have also prepared first aid kits, torches, water, food and fuel for the hotel’s power generator,” said Ampawan Taopheng, manager of Lub D Koh Samui on Chaweng Beach. She added that other hotel operators had made similar preparations. PTT Exploration and Production Pcl also said it had suspended operations at Bongkot and Erawan, two of the country’s biggest gas fields in the Gulf of Thailand. “Our immediate and urgent task is to do everything in our power to ensure safety and wellbeing of staff,” the company said. Claim: Thailand cancels flights to holiday island as storm threatens.
Example Output:
Thailand canceled flights to a popular tourist island, battened down beachside resorts and evacuated offshore oil rigs as the first tropical storm in nearly 30 years menaced its southern shores on Thursday.