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: Muskegon resident Pamela Anderson said that after hearing about numerous cases, she started a Facebook group about cancer deaths among people who live or have lived near the Butterworth landfill site in Grand Rapids. They plan to bring up the issue at a city commission meeting this week, the Grand Rapids Press reported . The group recently met with Kent County Health Department epidemiologist Brian Hartl, who advised them to collect more information on cancer rates in the area. “If there are rare forms of cancer, or cancers we’re seeing affect a young population, it might trigger further investigation,” Hartl said. But he cautioned that cancer is difficult to study, and that it can take years and multiple triggers to emerge. “Especially in small areas like a neighborhood or a block, it makes it challenging to connect it to environmental exposure,” Hartl said. “Most cancers are due to lifestyle choices, not environmental factors.” The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that theoretical cancer and health risks from the landfill exist, but that they’re limited to regular direct contact with the waste over several decades. The agency conducted a site cleanup in 1999, and removed material contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyl and chromium. The EPA said there is no current exposure at the site. “A lot of those kids in the ’60s and ’70s used to play in the dump,” said Shane Smith, who grew up down the street from Anderson in the Indiana Avenue neighborhood. “It was just starting to alarm to us, because my dad’s entire generation passed away from cancer.” Anderson said she’s having the soil tested for contaminants at a home in the same neighborhood. ___ Information from: The Grand Rapids Press, http://www.mlive.com/grand-rapids Claim: Residents investigate cancer rates near Michigan landfill.
Example Output: A group of residents is investigating cancer rates in a western Michigan neighborhood that’s near a contaminated landfill classified as a Superfund site.

Example Input: Paragraph: In his urban legend book The Baby Train, folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand writes that he first heard the “dead body found under hotel bed” legend in 1991. Every version that came to him mentioned a Las Vegas hotel, but the lack of checkable details led him to believe this was an apocryphal tale. Okay, so we can date the appearance of this legend to 1991. Unlike a number of other such gruesome tales, this legend appears to have sprung from a misremembering of any one of a number of actual news items, with the talebearer shifting certain details so that deaths which took place in anonymous little motels along Interstates are said to have happened in Las Vegas, America’s own Sin City, and victims who’d (usually) done little else amiss than be in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or take up with questionable company were transformed through the magic of retelling into prostitutes. Dead bodies get stashed in the box spring or the bed’s pedestal more often than you’d want to believe. What’s more, a fair number of them are only discovered days later … after the new tenant complains about a persistent and disagreeable odor. In each of the following cases not only were bodies discovered under hotel beds, but it was investigations of the smell of decomposition that led to their discoveries. On 10 July 2003, a man checked into the Capri Motel, just east of downtown Kansas City, and began complaining about a foul odor in his room. Management told him nothing could be done about the problem, and he spent three nights in his room before checking out because he could no longer stand the smell. When the cleaning staff came in to make up the room on 13 July, they lifted the mattress and underneath found a man’s body in an advanced stage of decomposition. On 10 June 1999 the rapidly decomposing remains of 64-year-old Saul Hernandez were discovered inside the bed in Room 112 at the Burgundy Motor Inn in Atlantic City, New Jersey. A German couple had spent the night sleeping over Hernandez’s remains, and it was their complaint to the manager about the smell in their room which led to the discovery of the corpse. In July 1996 a woman’s body was found under a mattress in the Colorado Boulevard Travelodge in Pasadena, CA. Apparently the motel’s staff discovered her ten days after her demise and only after guests had complained for several days of a foul odor coming from that room. There were two stashed-and-smelly body cases in Florida in 1994. (Further adding to the confusability of these stories’ taking place in the same year and the same state, in both instances the next tenants those rooms had were German tourists.) In August 1994 in Fort Lauderdale, hotel staff discovered the body of 47-year-old Bryan Gregory tucked under a platform bed. Though the staff had themselves noticed the strange smell for days, they only set about looking for its source after a German couple spent the night in that room and afterwards complained about the odor. In March 1994 the body of 24-year-old Josefina Martinez was found underneath a bed at the Traveler’s Hotel near Miami International Airport. Again, the discovery was prompted by an aggrieved German tourist upset about a foul odor in his room. In Virginia in 1989, Jerry Lee Dunbar disposed of the remains of two victims this way: 27-year-old Deirdre Smith, who was discovered in May under the floor of a motel room on Route 1, and 29-year-old Marilyn Graham, who turned up in June under a bed in the Alexandria Econo Lodge. In Smith’s case, the killer first kept her body partially hidden under his bed for two days, then subsequently placed it in the crawl space under the carpeted floor. Her presence seemingly didn’t bother him, because he didn’t move out of that room until three or four weeks later. Both girls’ bodies were eventually found after other guests complained about the stink. In Mineola, New York, motel in 1988, a body turned up in a box spring. The remains of 29-year-old Mary Jean DeOliviera were found at the Oceanside Motel. Again, the body was discovered days later and only after other patrons complained about the smell. At least two other guests unknowingly cohabited with the body before it was found, and at least one guest refused to stay in that room because of the smell. Here’s a change of pace — not a murder, but a death by misadventure. In Rosedale, Maryland in 1987, an unidentified man died of a drug overdose after one of the thirty-four balloons of heroin he’d swallowed burst. His partner stashed the corpse under their motel bed, then split. Three days later, the family the room was next rented to complained about the odor, and this led to the body’s discovery. One of the oldest “smelly body left under the bed” sightings comes from 1982. Richard Kuklinski, Daniel Deppner, and Gary Smith often teamed together to run auto theft scams. Kuklinski and Deppner decided to kill Smith, and they accomplished this by feeding him a cyanide-laced hamburger in a North Bergen, New Jersey, motel room. Kuklinkski finished off Smith by strangling him when watching Smith die of poisoning proved tiresome. Smith’s body was stuffed under the bed and left there. It was found four days later, on 27 December 1982. During the intervening four days, the room had been rented to others each night. Guests had wrinkled their noses at the smell, but none thought to look under the bed. That case has seemingly been topped by one in which Sony Millbrook of Memphis, Tennessee, was reported missing on 27 January 2010 after she failed to pick up her children from school. Forty-seven days later, on 15 March 2010, homicide investigators were called to the room of a Budget Inn motel where Millbrook had been living just prior to her disappearance, her body having just been discovered inside the frame of the bed there — even though the room had reportedly been cleaned and rented several times since her disappearance almost seven weeks earlier. There are, of course, numerous other cases of dead bodies being left under hotel beds, but I’ve chosen not to report on these because they lack the key element of the legend: complaints about the presence of a horrific smell leading to the corpse’s discovery. What gives this urban legend its chills-down-the-spine gruesomeness is the body’s being found only after an unsuspecting traveler spends the night sleeping above it. That clearly happened in at least some of the cases mentioned here (and perhaps in others where the news reports stated only that hotel guests had complained without specifying which guests). Urban legends tend to localize to where we believe they likely would have happened. It’s easy to understand how in each of the versions Brunvand related that Las Vegas was always named as the city where the corpse reposed, for Vegas is indeed viewed as Sin City, USA. Much easier to believe that the unsuspecting traveler shared his room with a moldering corpse in Las Vegas than it is to (rightly) place that occurrence in small-town New York, Virginia, or Maryland. Especially when dealing with a half-remembered true story, it’s natural for the “obvious” details to replace facts that have been misplaced due to ordinary fuzziness of memory. One, after all, does not let a lack of certainty stand in the way of a good story. Keep in mind that the Deirdre Smith (1989, Virginia), Marilyn Graham (1989, Virginia), Mary Jean DeOliviera (1988, New York), John Doe (1987, Maryland), and Gary Smith (1982, New York) cases antedate 1991. Gruesome finds like those tend to get heavily reported on, and that certainly happened with Smith, Graham and DeOliviera (the cites below don’t begin to do justice to the coverage these discoveries got — they were reported on by a double handful of various papers across the USA). It is because of that widespread coverage that I lean towards this legend’s having sprung to life out of a true story whose location got shifted from Your Town, USA (where only nice people live) to Sin City (where life and room rates are cheap). Claim: A vacationing couple staying in a foul-smelling motel room discovered a body hidden under their bed.
Example Output: Sightings:   Look for this legend in the 1995 film Four Rooms. This legend was also the subject of a July 2014 fake news article.

Example Input: Paragraph: Clearly, the costs involved in cancer treatment already are high. By removing a layer of treatment from an estimated 40,000 patients, those costs would have to drop, but it is unclear from the story by how much. Also, it would have been worth mentioning whether this is likely to affect how insurance companies handle lymph node removals. The story did a good job providing some numbers on benefits, but we wish it had provided more and explained some things a bit more. It says, for example, “In 27 percent of the women who had additional nodes removed, those nodes were cancerous.” How many women had additional nodes removed and, of those, how many had cancerous nodes? A figure like 27% means 1 out of every 4 women had nodes that were, indeed, cancerous, which seems to conflict with other statements in the story about chemotherapy and radiation wiping out the cancer. The story discusses several harms from lymph node removal, and shows that the difference in survival for women who had nodes removed and those who did not was not significant. “Indeed, women in the study who had the nodes taken out were far more likely (70 percent versus 25 percent) to have complications like infections, abnormal sensations and fluid collecting in the armpit. They were also more likely to have lymphedema.” This is where the story really outperformed some of the competition covering the same news. It placed the study into the broader context of a movement in cancer care away from surgeries that don’t provide a clear benefit, and it also explained the study design and the limitations of the study in several ways. “The study, at 115 medical centers, included 891 patients. Their median age was in the mid-50s, and they were followed for a median of 6.3 years. … One potential weakness in the study is that there was not complete follow-up information on 166 women, about equal numbers from each group. The researchers said that did not affect the results. A statistician who was not part of the study said the missing information should have been discussed further, but probably did not have an important impact. It is not known whether the findings also apply to women who do not have radiation and chemotherapy, or to those who have only part of the breast irradiated. Nor is it known whether the findings could be applied to other types of cancer.” It was too bad that it did not mention limitations in terms of lack of enrollment. The targeted enrollment was 1900. There also was an imbalance in the randomization that should have been mentioned. The story is careful to explain to readers that the research findings only apply to a subset of women with breast cancer. “Now, researchers report that for women who meet certain criteria — about 20 percent of patients, or 40,000 women a year in the United States — taking out cancerous nodes has no advantage. It does not change the treatment plan, improve survival or make the cancer less likely to recur. And it can cause complications like infection and lymphedema, a chronic swelling in the arm that ranges from mild to disabling.” The Q&A that ran with the story provided more detail about the different types of cancers and cancer patients, noting, for example, “First of all, 20 percent (the estimate of the study’s lead author, Dr. Armando E. Giuliano) refers to 20 percent of all the newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer each year. This does not include noninvasive breast cancer, or DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ. The total is about 207,000, so 20 percent is roughly 40,000 women. That is about how many women would match those in the study, in terms of tumor status, affected lymph nodes and course of treatment.”  The story also says, “The results mean that women like those in the study will still have to have at least one lymph node removed, to look for cancer and decide whether they will need more treatment. But taking out just one or a few nodes should be enough.” Good quotes including from Dr. Monica Morrow, chief of the breast service at Sloan-Kettering and an author of the study, but also a few fromindependent experts toward the end. Dr. Grant W. Carlson, a professor of surgery at the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, and the author of an editorial accompanying the study, provides some soul-searching context by saying that, in taking out so many lymph nodes, “I have a feeling we’ve been doing a lot of harm.” Dr. Elisa R. Port, the chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan, said, “It’s definitely practice-changing.” And Dr. Alison Estabrook, the chief of the comprehensive breast center at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt hospital in New York said, “In the past, surgeons thought our role was to get out all the cancer. … Now he’s saying we don’t really have to do that.” The story does a great job explaining the history of this form of treatment and how it has evolved over time. “But doctors have continued to think that even microscopic disease in the lymph nodes should be cut out to improve the odds of survival. And until recently, they counted cancerous lymph nodes to gauge the severity of the disease and choose chemotherapy. But now the number is not so often used to determine drug treatment, doctors say. What matters more is whether the disease has reached any nodes at all. If any are positive, the disease could become deadly. Chemotherapy is recommended, and the drugs are the same, no matter how many nodes are involved.” The story goes on to do something that stories like this rarely do, it compares compares the harms from different forms of treatment, saying “After armpit surgery, 20 percent to 30 percent of women develop lymphedema, Dr. Port said, and radiation may increase the rate to 40 percent to 50 percent. Physical therapy can help, but there is no cure.” The story makes it clear that removing all under-arm lymph nodes is the standard of care for women with breast cancer and that feelings about that standard are entrenched. The story establishes that a change in treatment protocol away from removing all the lymph nodes under the arms of women with breast cancer would be novel. There is some nuance, here, though that could be missed by a casual reader. Women who have one to two positive lymph nodes would avoid having additional lymph node surgery. The overall tone of the story may make it appear to some readers that women get to avoid lymph node surgery altogether, but they don’t. The story goes well beyond any news release. Claim: Lymph Node Study Shakes Pillar of Breast Cancer Care
Example Output:
We do wish that the story had provided a few more hard numbers, especially in regard to cost. And the story could have made it clear higher up that this study does not mean that lymph nodes should never be removed. But, overall, this story earns a top five-star score. The story says it all: “The discovery turns standard medical practice on its head. Surgeons have been removing lymph nodes from under the arms of breast cancer patients for 100 years, believing it would prolong women’s lives by keeping the cancer from spreading or coming back.” Patients who receive a cancer diagnosis are often thinking about one thing; metastisis. It has been drilled into our brains that cancer spreads and often can spread quickly. This study shows that, because doctors already are providing patients with chemotherapy and radiation, those treatments may wipe out the cancer in the lymph nodes and negate the need for surgery. This will be tough for some patients, and doctors, to accept, though. As the story notes, “Doctors and patients alike find it easy to accept more cancer treatment on the basis of a study, Dr. Morrow said, but get scared when the data favor less treatment.”