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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "As he asked Philadelphia City Council to consider a $300 million investment in the city’s parks and recreation centers, Mayor Jim Kenney told a success story. During his budget address in council chambers last week, the first-year mayor said that when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, ""crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" That seemed like a huge drop in a high-crime area of the city, so we decided to check out the claim. The Kenney administration said it got the statistic from a Dickinson College study conducted in conjunction with Philadelphia Police and the Fairmount Park Conservancy, a nonprofit that leads capital projects and programming across 10,200 acres of Fairmount Park and 100 neighborhood parks throughout the city. Meg Holscher, the Conservancy’s senior director of development, said the 87-acre Hunting Park in North Philadelphia was identified in 2008 as an area of development because of how close it was to a high number of families. At the time, prostitution and drug trade were common in and around the park. After community meetings and input from neighbors, the Conservancy -- along with the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation -- presented a master plan for the park in October 2009 that outlined two new playgrounds, a community garden and farmers market, new tennis courts and youth tennis programming, as well as a renovated football and soccer field. One of the most visible changes, though, was 64 lights placed around the park, which Holscher said residents wanted to curb illegal activity and violence. ""This project for us was a little bit of a game changer,"" she said. ""We’ve started to look at parks and how they are tied to healthy eating, healthy living and violence prevention."" Holscher said the $4.5 million Hunting Park capital projects and programming was funded through both public and private funds. In addition to that, another $500,000 was added through grants and corporate donations, bringing the total amount for phase one of the revitalization to some $5 million. After efforts to spruce up the park started in 2010, Conservancy staff started hearing from community members that it seemed like crime in the area had slowed, but an analysis wasn’t completed until 2014. That year, Amanda Vandenburg, then a researcher at Dickinson College in Carlisle, was interested in how parks influence communities. Vandenburg said she analyzed public data from the Philadelphia Police Department and charted crime statistics from 2006, before the revitalization efforts began, through 2013, when the first phase of the project had wrapped up. The data included both part I crimes (violent crimes like homicide, rape and aggravated assault) and part II crimes (like simple assault, prostitution, drug possession and other non-violent offenses.) She mapped instances of crime from inside and a half-mile buffer around the park, and found that there was a spike in crime between 2006 and 2007. After that point, crime began decreasing in 2008 citywide as police enforcement efforts in Philadelphia changed under a new mayoral administration. But crime continued to go down near Hunting Park. Between 2009 and 2013, ""there was an 89 percent drop in the number of crimes,"" according to Vandenburg’s study. Rape and theft from vehicle crime incidents increased over that time period, but other crimes decreased, including prostitution and drug use. Vandenburg also conducted a ""hot spot"" analysis that showed areas predicted to have the highest amounts of crime were closer to and in the park in 2009 and moved away from the park by 2013. While she said the revitalization of Hunting Park can’t be attributed as the only reason for a decrease in crime in the immediate area, the data does support the theory that illegal activity in the area decreased as the park was improved. Our Ruling Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim ." Claim: When the City and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years.

Ex Output:
"Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim True."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation’s health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor’s offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare’s prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It’s unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday’s report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions — nearly 79%. The government’s findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with  an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP’s findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs. Claim: US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.

Ex Output:
Prices for prescription drugs edged down by 1% last year, a rare result driven by declines for generics and slow, low growth in the cost of brand-name medications, the government said Thursday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: On 23 June 2017, Trucks USA reported that Pinnacle Foods had recalled some frozen pancakes, waffles and French toast due to concerns over potential Listeria contamination. The terrifying headline reads: “ALERT: Largest RECALL in Recent Times ANNOUNCED – EVERYONE Has This in Their Freezer and it can KILL YOU”, but the text is more sober: A New Jersey-based food company is recalling Aunt Jemima frozen pancakes, waffles and French toast because they could be contaminated with Listeria. Listeriosis is a serious infection usually caused by eating food contaminated with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes. An estimated 1,600 people get listeriosis each year, and about 260 die. The infection is most likely to sicken pregnant women and their newborns, adults aged 65 or older, and people with weakened immune systems. Despite the alarmist headline, the article does describe a real product recall which was registered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on 5 May 2017. The Trucks USA story republishes most of the FDA recall notice, which reads, in part: Pinnacle Foods Inc. is voluntarily recalling all “Best By” dates of Aunt Jemima Frozen Pancakes, Frozen Waffles & Frozen French Toast Slices distributed nationally in the United States and one product into Mexico because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. No illnesses have been reported. The products are being recalled as a precautionary measure given the health and safety of our consumers is our top priority. Pinnacle Foods initiated the recall after testing indicated the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in the plant environment. We are working in coordination with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on this recall. The products recalled include a range of Aunt Jemima pancakes, mini-pancakes, “Lil’ Griddlers”, waffles and French toast. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also announced the recall of two other Pinnacle Foods products: Aunt Jemima French toast and sausage, and Hungry Man boneless fried chicken and waffles. The Trucks USA article sensationalized the recall in its headline. This is far from being the “largest recall in recent times” — a 2007-2009 salmonella outbreak, for example, led to the recall of hundreds of products containing peanuts, at an estimated cost of $1 billion. And clearly it’s not true to say that “everyone” has these products in their freezer. Furthermore, while it’s technically true that the products “can kill you,” just about every food product on the market can kill you, if they carry certain bacteria. This recall is precautionary, due to potential contamination, and no Listeria infection has yet been linked to the products. However, the Trucks USA article does accurately present some facts about the disease, and includes (without proper attribution) this Centers for Disease Control (CDC) description of it. Listeriosis is a serious infection usually caused by eating food contaminated with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes. An estimated 1,600 people get listeriosis each year, and about 260 die. The infection is most likely to sicken pregnant women and their newborns, adults aged 65 or older, and people with weakened immune systems. Claim: "In May 2017, Pinnacle Foods announced the ""largest recall in recent times"" of several Aunt Jemima products due to possible Listeria contamination."

Ex Output:

"What's true: Pinnacle Foods recalled several products, including Aunt Jemima pancakes and waffles, over Listeria concerns. What's false: It was not the ""largest recall in recent times."""