TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: KOMO-TV reports the outbreak was investigated by Public Health Seattle-King County after at least 30 people reported becoming ill after consuming food and drinks at the tavern on November 23 and 24. During the investigation, inspectors identified at least 11 employees who experienced norovirus symptoms since Nov. 24. At least two of those employees had household members with symptoms dating back to Nov. 20, health officials said Wednesday. In response to those findings, Brave Horse Tavern closed down on Nov. 27 and carried out a thorough cleaning and disinfection. All ready-to-eat foods were discarded as well, and the restaurant reopened on Nov. 29. Claim: Dozens sickened by outbreak of norovirus-like illness.

SOLUTION: Health officials say at least 43 people have been sickened by an outbreak of norovirus-like illness - including vomiting, diarrhea, body aches, chills, and fever - linked to Brave Horse Tavern in Seattle.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "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." Claim: 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.

SOLUTION: "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."

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "A Republican group has launched a racy ad saying Colorado state Sen. Morgan Carroll, a Democratic congressional candidate, voted to allow welfare recipients to use public benefit cards at ATMs in strip clubs and marijuana dispensaries. The National Republican Congressional Committee’s ad shows how down and dirty the race between Carroll and Republican incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman is getting in the final sprint to Election Day. They’re fighting over suburban Denver’s 6th Congressional District, one of the nation’s most competitive swing districts. ""Career politicians waste lots of money. Morgan Carroll is one of the worst,"" the narrator says at the beginning of the ad, titled ""Clubs."" ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries,"" the narrator continues as the video shifts from Carroll addressing the Legislature to her standing at a podium in front of a red neon silhouette of a nude female figure and the words ""STRIPPERS"" and ""MORGAN CARROLL"" on a brick wall. There's a row of marijuana-filled jars beside the senator. ""It's enough to make you ask, 'What's Morgan Carroll thinking?' Welfare for lap dances? Morgan Carroll is careless with our money,"" the ad concludes. We examined the claim that ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."" The facts are fairly straightforward. Carroll was among a dozen Democratic senators who voted against final passage of a 2015 bill to prohibit welfare recipients from using state-issued electronic benefit transfer (or EBT) cards to obtain cash from ATMs at pot shops and strip clubs. Low-income families use these debit cards to buy ""essential goods"" such as food and clothing and to help pay for utilities and rent. Senate Bill 65, which became law, expanded on existing state law prohibiting people from using the cards to withdraw ATM cash at liquor stores, casinos and gun shops. Federal law already required states to prevent people receiving public benefits from using EBT cards at liquor stores, gambling and adult entertainment venues. Colorado also has had trouble preventing people from withdrawing ATM cash totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos and liquor stores, according to Watchdog.org. State officials and lawmakers warned that Colorado would face financial sanctions for failing to comply with federal prohibitions against EBT card use at strip clubs. There were also concerns about a federal crackdown after several reports of people using the benefit cards at shops selling medical or recreational marijuana -- a drug that’s legal under state law but illegal under federal law. ""We stand to lose a lot if we don't show we are trying"" to prevent the use of tax money for marijuana, Republican Sen. Vicki Marble, a primary sponsor of the bill, told the Associated Press last year. ""The growers here put in a lot of time and effort. A raid would be absolutely devastating to our state."" Why did Carroll -- along with many other Democratic senators -- vote against the bill? ""The reason she voted against it was because of 'banking deserts,' where many poor people don't have"" bank ATMs in their neighborhoods, said Carroll campaign spokesman Drew Godinich. Removing their ability to get cash from ATMs at the many marijuana dispensaries that dot Colorado cities and towns hampers low-income families’ ability to access money to purchase legitimate products elsewhere, he added. According to the Atlantic magazine, a March study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the increase of ""banking deserts"" found that ""lower-income communities and communities of color have historically and disproportionately limited access to mainstream banking services."" This makes it harder for people in these communities to manage their finances and build wealth, the study said. Democratic lawmakers had repeatedly defeated similar legislation, arguing that improper ATM withdrawals at strip clubs, liquor stores, casinos represent a tiny fraction of the total use of cash-assistance cards, the Denver Post reported. Critics also note that the 2015 law doesn't prevent someone on welfare from using their EBT card to make a withdrawal at a supermarket ATM and then go spend the cash at a pot shop or a strip club. Our ruling NRCC says, ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."" There's slightly more to this than the NRCC lets on: Carroll voted, unsuccessfully, to allow welfare recipients to continue withdrawing money from ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries. Carroll’s spokesman said the senator voted against the bill that prohibited people from using public benefit cards for cash withdrawals at strip clubs and marijuana dispensaries because she was concerned about the impact on residents of poor neighborhoods where there are few -- if any -- banking services. State officials and lawmakers warned that Colorado could face financial sanctions for failing to comply with federal prohibitions against the use of benefit cards at adult entertainment venues. With that additional information in mind, we rate the claim . Claim: "National Republican Congressional Committee Says Colorado congressional candidate Morgan Carroll ""voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."

SOLUTION:
"NRCC says, ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."" There's slightly more to this than the NRCC lets on: Carroll voted, unsuccessfully, to allow welfare recipients to continue withdrawing money from ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries. Carroll’s spokesman said the senator voted against the bill that prohibited people from using public benefit cards for cash withdrawals at strip clubs and marijuana dispensaries because she was concerned about the impact on residents of poor neighborhoods where there are few -- if any -- banking services. State officials and lawmakers warned that Colorado could face financial sanctions for failing to comply with federal prohibitions against the use of benefit cards at adult entertainment venues. With that additional information in mind.