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: The Supreme Judicial Court said MIT cannot be blamed for the death of 25-year-old Han Nguyen, who jumped from the top of a campus building minutes after a professor confronted him about an offensive email. But it found that schools can be liable if they fail to act after they become aware that a student has attempted suicide while enrolled, or shortly before entering, or learn that the student had threatened to commit suicide. Gary Pavela, a consultant on law and policy issues in higher education, said he’s unaware of another state appellate court that has explicitly found that universities have a duty to prevent suicide in limited cases and defines those circumstances. “This will be very newsworthy to colleges around the country,” said Pavela, who has written a book about the legal questions surrounding student suicides. Jeffrey Beeler, an attorney for Nguyen’s estate, said they were disappointed the court sided with MIT, but believe its ruling will nonetheless “save student lives going forward.” An MIT spokeswoman said in a statement that Nguyen’s death was a tragedy and students’ well-being is of “paramount importance to the school.” Spokeswoman Kimberly Allen said the school already offers a “robust network” of services for students and “continually considers ways to enhance those resources.” The court noted that Nguyen never told anyone at MIT that he planned to kill himself or tried to kill himself while enrolled at the school. Furthermore, he was living off campus instead of a dormitory under “daily observation,” the court said. But the judges said schools must take “reasonable measures” to help students they know have attempted suicide while at the school or have threatened to kill themselves. That would include initiating a suicide prevention protocol, getting the student in the care of a medical professional, or contacting police, fire or emergency medical personnel. “It requires the school to really have a lot of information that the suicide is likely and the reasonable measures that the school needs to take are not extremely onerous,” said Naomi Shatz, an attorney who’s not involved in the case. A group of 18 colleges and universities — including Harvard University and Boston College — told the court that holding MIT responsible for Nguyen’s death would have far-reaching consequences by causing officials with no medical expertise to overreact to concerns out of fear of liability. Nguyen’s professors shared concerns about his mental health in the months leading up to his death, and one encouraged his colleagues to pass him or they might have “blood on their hands.” In a telephone call 11 minutes before he killed himself, a professor “read him the riot act” over an email Nguyen sent to another MIT official that they believed was inappropriate, court records said. The family said that the school should have known that “mishandling this fragile student” would result in his suicide. But MIT said the school wasn’t aware of the severity of his condition, noting that he was treated by outside professionals and refused on-campus resources. None of the professionals who treated Nguyen while he was at MIT believed he was an imminent risk of killing himself, the school said. ___ Follow Alanna Durkin Richer at http://twitter.com/aedurkinricher . Read more of her work at http://bit.ly/2hIhzDb . Claim: Court says schools can be liable for suicides but clears MIT.
Example Output: Schools can be held liable for student suicides in certain circumstances, Massachusetts’ highest court said Monday in a ruling that also cleared the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of responsibility for the death of a graduate student who killed himself on campus in 2009.

Example Input: Paragraph: The Department of Health Services reported Friday that Wisconsin has seen 459 hospitalizations and 11 deaths due to flu complications this season. The number of hospitalizations is three times higher than last year at this time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has elevated Wisconsin to its high flu category. South-central and southwestern Wisconsin have been hardest hit. And physicians said it could get worse before it gets better. “The best thought is that we are still going to be seeing it rise before we see it fall. Generally, the flu season lasts anywhere between four and 12 weeks, with eight kind of being the average,” said Dr. Joseph McBride, an infectious disease specialist at UW Health in Madison. “I would imagine we are going to remain pretty high throughout January, but we’ll see.”   In Milwaukee: 131 people have been hospitalized with the flu compared with 17 at this time last season. “We know that it’s hitting some families pretty hard,” Aurora Health Care pediatrician Dr. Kevin Dahlman said. State Health Officer Jeanne Ayers urged anyone who has not had an annual flu shot to get one. Claim: Flu hospitalizations spike across Wisconsin with 11 deaths .
Example Output: Wisconsin health officials are urging people to protect themselves as flu numbers spike across the state.

Example Input: Paragraph: Both groups in this study used smoking cessation products, and so it would have been helpful to know how much they cost, even if it was just a quick approximation or discussion of affordability. At the same time, these aren’t high-dollar items, so cost isn’t as important to discuss as say, when reporting findings about a new cancer drug or surgery. The story gives the absolute number of participants (697) who were enrolled in the trial and then reports the percentages of participants who stopped smoking. While it reported reduced cigarette consumption in relative numbers, it did specify that participants smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day, giving somewhat more meaning to these percentages (e.g. “decrease their smoking by an average of 29%”). It told us quit rates at four weeks and six months, too–so we get some sense of change over time on results. It also placed these results in the greater context of what we know about quit rates among smokers. When quitting, heavy smokers can experience withdrawal symptoms–such as depression, insomnia and decreased heart rate–even if they use nicotine replacement products. The article did refer to “withdrawal” and “urge intensities” and so we’ll considered that sufficient. However, the piece would have been stronger had it specifically discussed the withdrawal symptoms mentioned above. The story sufficiently discusses the quality of evidence here, including that participants were assigned to one of two treatment groups. We’re told how far out the the study lasted, too–an indirect measure of quality, since long-term success rates are important for addictive behaviors. We also liked this frank sentence: “The researchers acknowledge that this is hardly the last word on the best way to quit.” The story does not engage in disease mongering–a smoking habit is unhealthy and harmful, and efforts to improve quit rates are important to study. This story does not include any comments from independent sources–or even from one of the researchers themselves. It only refers to the original journal article. Why does this matter? It’s always a good idea to consult an outside source because it’s likely to yield insights and context that otherwise would be lacking. But overall, this is a case where the story is still fairly strong, regardless of the lack of sourcing or interviews. The study is comparing two alternatives when quitting smoking–either cold turkey or gradually. The story discusses these options, along with the use of nicotine replacement in both scenarios. That’s enough to qualify as Satisfactory. However, another alternative the author didn’t mention was medications that can help with cravings–such as bupropion. What does the research say (if anything) about how those medications might augment quitting? That’s important to discuss. The availability of cigarettes or smoking cessation products is not in question. Although the story uses the word “new” when it means “latest” in the lead paragraph, we feel it did a good enough job referring to other studies to merit a Satisfactory rating. Despite the lack of original comments, this LA Times article does not appear to be based on any news releases we found online. Claim: To quit smoking, it's best to go cold turkey, study finds
Example Output:
This story looks at a study that investigated whether going cold turkey (quitting abruptly) is more effective than cutting back gradually. The article does a good job quantifying the benefits, and informing readers of the quality of the research. We also liked how the author made an effort to place this latest study in the larger body of research on smoking cessation, and used plainspoken language to let us know the results weren’t “overwhelming.” However, the story lacked comments from an independent source–or even one of the researchers. Well-designed research on smoking cessation is vital to helping smokers overcome their addiction. The media’s role is important, too–readers eager to quit smoking are not likely to be reading medical journals, but they are reading the news. Therefore, media reports about smoking cessation research must help readers make sense of new findings, and not overhype lackluster results or downplay serious harms or costs.