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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "In his August Facebook Live video, Gov. Eric Greitens encouraged viewers to submit their questions. One viewer asked, ""What do we do for our veterans except use them as our reason to get mad when it fits our agenda?"" In response, Greitens touched on providing jobs for veterans, in addition to citing the rate of veterans graduating from treatment courts in Missouri. ""Our veterans in our veterans court, are graduating — 73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts,"" Greitens said. ""By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" We were wondering: Are 73 percent of veterans graduating from treatment courts? While we never heard back from Greitens’ spokesman, a Supreme Court of Missouri spokeswoman pointed us in the direction of where those numbers came from. According to the Missouri Courts website, treatment courts began as a way to battle increasing substance abuse problems. Treatment courts have existed in Missouri for nearly 25 years. The first treatment court was started in 1993 in Jackson County. Legislation in 2013 established the first veterans treatment courts programs, which ""are hybrid drug and mental health court dockets that use the treatment court model to serve veterans struggling with addiction, serious mental illness and/or co-occurring disorders,"" according to a treatment courts fact sheet. As of August 2017, there were 147 treatment court programs throughout the state. Of those, 12 are veterans treatment courts, with the remaining being adult, juvenile, family and DWI courts. Veterans can be accepted into treatment courts for drug-involved offenses and DWI offenses, Beth Riggert, communications counsel for the Supreme Court of Missouri, wrote in an email. According to the treatment courts fact sheet, ""The graduation rate for all programs in fiscal 2017 exceeds 61 percent."" However, the most recent data on veterans treatment courts is from calendar year 2016, Riggert said. In that time frame, there were a total of 247 veterans participating in veterans treatment courts in the state, Riggert said. However, because the program is rolling, only a total of 82 veterans exited the program in 2016. Of those, 60 successfully graduated the program and 22 did not. That translates to a success rate of 73.17 percent, or just about what Greitens said. Since 2011, the graduation rate from veterans treatment courts has steadily been increasing as more veterans have gone through the program. Greitens also said, ""By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent."" Because we were unable to reach Greitens’ spokesman for comment, we are unsure which specific treatment courts program Greitens was referring to when he said ""the very good drug court program."" However, Riggert elaborated on the graduation for other treatment court programs. In the same period, the graduation rate from adult drug courts was 52 percent, and the graduation rate from DWI courts was 90 percent, Riggert said. While Greitens is correct that the veterans treatment courts’ graduation rate was higher than some, such as the adult drug court’s rate, it is still not as high as the DWI court’s graduation rate of 90 percent. However, Riggert said it may not be accurate to compare graduation rates between treatment courts to prove one program’s success. ""The various types of treatment court programs are distinct, and so it is not helpful to try to make a side-by-side comparison,"" Riggert said. While 73 percent of veterans exiting the program did graduate in 2016, it is unclear how many veterans who graduate from the program have to return for additional treatment. ""Because veterans treatment courts are relatively new, we do not yet have sufficient quantifiable data from which to determine recidivism rates for these programs,"" Riggert said. Greitens said, ""73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" While the overall numbers are small, Greitens is correct that in 2016, 73 percent of veterans successfully completed treatment court. Over the same time period, the overall graduation rate from adult treatment court was 52 percent, officials say. However, officials also pointed out that the two programs are not identical, which makes comparing them imprecise. In addition, while graduation rate is one measurement of success, it’s not the only one, and as Riggert noted, veteran treatment courts are so new that no data on recidivism rates have been collected." Claim: Seventy-three percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans.

Output: "Our ruling Greitens said, ""73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" Greitens said, ""73 percent of our veterans are graduating from drug courts. By contrast, I think most of the people in the very good drug court program — the graduation rate’s like 53, 55 percent. The point of that is that drug courts are working for veterans."" While the overall numbers are small, Greitens is correct that in 2016, 73 percent of veterans successfully completed treatment court. Over the same time period, the overall graduation rate from adult treatment court was 52 percent, officials say. While the overall numbers are small, Greitens is correct that in 2016, 73 percent of veterans successfully completed treatment court. Over the same time period, the overall graduation rate from adult treatment court was 52 percent, officials say. However, officials also pointed out that the two programs are not identical, which makes comparing them imprecise. In addition, while graduation rate is one measurement of success, it’s not the only one, and as Riggert noted, veteran treatment courts are so new that no data on recidivism rates have been collected. However, officials also pointed out that the two programs are not identical, which makes comparing them imprecise. In addition, while graduation rate is one measurement of success, it’s not the only one, and as Riggert noted, veteran treatment courts are so new that no data on recidivism rates have been collected."


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: There was no mention of the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We’ll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under “Evidence,” there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it’s not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, it notes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer — not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn’t establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we’re concerned about the closing comment that women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level — and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefits of vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It’s hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongering apparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn’t discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don’t think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we’ve already docked points for that, so we’ll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it’s always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it’s probably best to say “believed to be the first.”  While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wrongly jump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation — because it was a controlled clinical trial — has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected. Claim: Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease

Output: This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published in Cancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing — a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words “diet,” “overweight,” “vitamin,” and “cancer” are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggest killer disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon push heart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Coronavirus infections are on the rise in Texas, with some areas experiencing a more dramatic increase than others. In Central Texas, Austin and its surrounding counties have reported an increase in the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and hospitalizations. Hays County, which sits to the south of Austin, has been hit particularly hard. On June 19, the county reported more active cases than Austin’s Travis County — a remarkable feat considering that Travis County’s population is five times that of Hays County. U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat whose district includes parts of both counties, shared two tweets about the Austin area, including one highlighting the impact of the virus in Hays County. ""Hays County is one of the only places in Texas with more trouble: an incredible 845% increase in cases since June 7,"" he wrote. There’s no question Hays County has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, but is Doggett’s figure accurate? Hays County increase tied to activities In response to a question from PolitiFact Texas, Hays County spokeswoman Kim Hilsenbeck shared a press release outlining the impact of the coronavirus in the county since the onset of the pandemic. During April and early May — when local and statewide orders to stay at home were in place — the number of new daily cases in the county ranged from zero to ten. In late April, Gov. Greg Abbott initiated the first phase of a plan to reopen the state’s economy and allowed the statewide stay-at-home order to expire. He also allowed restaurants, retail stores, malls and movie theaters to reopen at limited capacity. In subsequent phases, Abbott allowed barbershops and salons to reopen with limited capacity and other restrictions. He also allowed rivers, parks and other natural areas to reopen. County health officials said they believe the gradual reopening of businesses might have contributed to an increase in COVID-19 cases. ""Through contact tracing, our health department staff were able to see the rapid increase in COVID-19 totals seemed to coincide with activities such as working at or going to restaurants and bars, activities such as floating the river, and attending large public gatherings,"" the release reads. Hilsenbeck also highlighted Mothers Day (May 10), Memorial Day (May 25) and protests against racism and police brutality as significant events in May. By the end of May and early June, the number of new cases in the county started to rise. On May 27 there were 18 new cases. On June 8, there were 43 new cases. More recently, the number of new daily cases in Hays County has ranged from 100 to 200. In April and May, the majority of new cases in the county were primarily in Kyle among people older than 30 who were Hispanic. But since early June, the group experiencing the largest increase in new COVID-19 cases is 20 to 29-year-olds in San Marcos. The number of people who identified as Hispanic has decreased. ""While not all 20-29-year-olds are college students, San Marcos has a large student population because of Texas State University, many of whom are now back in town following a period of virtual learning throughout the spring,"" the release reads. Examining data on new cases Doggett spokeswoman Kate Stotesbery said the figure he shared came from a graph published by an Austin-area television station. The graph shows the number of new coronavirus cases that have been reported each day in Hays County since April, plus a line showing the 14-day average of daily new cases. An arrow pointing upwards is overlaid on the graphic, with text on top that reads: ""845% 14-day average since June 7."" But Doggett’s remark on Twitter is missing that detail — that there has been an 845% increase in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases in the county since June 7. The increase in the actual number of cases is much higher. On June 7, the cumulative number of cases in the county was 385 and the number of new daily cases had been fluctuating. There were 24 new cases on June 2, 14 new cases on June 4 and zero new cases on June 7. By June 21, the cumulative count of cases in Hays County was 1,608, with 57 new cases reported that day. Looking at the 14-day average of new cases, it was 8 on June 7 and 87 on June 21. But the 7-day average is a more commonly used measurement by government agencies and news outlets to assess changes in the number of new cases in the area. The change in that figure during this period is substantially higher. Using weekly averages instead of daily tallies offers a more accurate picture of change over time, as it reduces the impact of daily spikes. From June 7 to June 21, Hays County experienced a roughly 1,569% increase in the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases — from 8 cases on June 7 to 134 on June 21. Our ruling Doggett said that Hays County had experienced ""an incredible 845% increase in cases since June 7."" Doggett was actually speaking about an increase in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases — a less common measurement of the increase in COVID-19 cases in an area — but his figure is accurate." Claim: Hays County in Central Texas has seen an “incredible 845% increase in (COVID-19) cases since June 7.”


Output: Doggett's claim left out an important detail: the statistic he highlighted is about the growth in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases. The increase in the 7-day average and the actual count of new cases is significantly higher.