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: 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 An archived version of that website from April 2018 previously defined domestic violence as:  A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain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.

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.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: More than 132,000 cases of the virus have been reported in 123 countries since it emerged in December in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual news conference. “Europe has now become the epicenter of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of world combined apart from China,” he said in Geneva. Tedros announced that the WHO was launching a coronavirus Solidarity Response Fund. This would to allow people and organizations to contribute to help fund masks, gloves, gowns and goggles for heath workers, as well as diagnostic kits and investment in research and development, including for vaccines. Facebook will match up to $10 million in donations, while Alphabet Inc’s Google will donate $5 million, the WHO and UN Foundation later announced in a joint statement. Social distancing, where people avoid close proximity or touching, is a “tried and tested method” to slow the spread of a virus but “not a panacea” that will stop transmission, the WHO’s top emergency expert Dr. Mike Ryan said. Each country must decide on its own measures to protect its population, he said, adding: “But we’ve also consistently said that blanket travel measures in their own right will do nothing to protect an individual state.”  Detection and isolation of infected people, as well as tracing their contacts and wider testing, must be part of a comprehensive strategy, Ryan said. “As part of an overall comprehensive strategy, there is a place - particularly inside national borders - for potentially restricting movement between zones, as we’ve seen in certain places,” he said. “But there is rarely a justification for blanket bans, unless of course the context and the risk defines that.”  U.S. President Donald Trump has announced sweeping travel restrictions to prevent people from 26 European countries - except for Britain and Ireland - from traveling to the United States in a bid to limit the virus spread. A number of other countries in recent days have announced stepped up border checks, and canceled flights to other countries, in an effort to contain the spread. Trump on Friday declared a national emergency over the fast-spreading coronavirus, opening the door to providing what he said was about $50 billion in federal aid to fight the disease. Claim: Europe is epicenter of coronavirus pandemic: WHO.

Output: Europe has now become the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic that has claimed 5,000 lives around the world, “a tragic milestone”, the World Health Organization said on Friday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The story explains the cost of the glasses and lenses and that the lens costs could be recurring. It did not explain if insurance covers this approach. The story allows the manufacturer to state that the lenses can help about 50% of people with dyslexia but that “the true rate is probably much higher.” But then it added repeated notes of skepticism from others: Not applicable. We don’t know what the harm would be, other than consumers pursuing a costly approach for which the evidence base is questioned. The story explains “A search of the medical literature found a single, company-funded study suggesting that ChromaGen lenses could improve the reading skills of people with dyslexia. The study of 47 dyslexics, led by optician and lens inventor David Harris, found that ChromaGen lenses worked significantly better than placebo lenses.” In addition to the study cited in the story, we found another recent article that showed no improvement in reading skill in 44 children aged 7-12 with Irlen Syndrome (a proposed disorder involving distortion of text when reading). (Pediatrics. 2011;128(4):e932.) But, as noted in the “Benefits” criterion above, the story also includes others’ cautions: No disease mongering. In fact, the story explained that dyslexia “is a complex and controversial condition” and that one optometrist said “there are different types of dyslexia, and only people who have trouble with visual distortions while reading are likely to benefit.” The story didn’t settle for the manufacturers’ claims. It turned to four other sources. The column ended with one alternative suggestion from a professor of opthalmology:  “It would make more sense to spend your money on something that’s proven to help. Like a tutor.” The column explained that the lenses are marketed on a company website, which also gives a list of providers. Not applicable. No claims of novelty are made in the column. It’s clear that independent research and reporting was done by the writer. Claim: The Healthy Skeptic: Promise of ChromaGen lenses for dyslexia a bit blurry


Output: The column allows a manufacturer to make its claims but then turns to a literature search and four sources to examine the evidence. Reading is an essential tool in a child’s development. Given the economic, social, and and academic impact of poor reading skills, it is not surprising that parents will seek out opportunities to improve their child’s skills. Because dyslexia is “a complex and controversial condition” as the column explains, it is important to scrutinize the evidence for products and approaches promoted as being able to help about half the people with the condition.