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 Q]: Paragraph: People who became ill attended the private function Nov. 24 at the Puritan Backroom conference center in Manchester, the state Department of Health and Human Services said Friday. One person later died, but it was unclear if the death was related to the norovirus outbreak, the department said. The restaurant is co-owned by U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas and is famous for its chicken tenders. It has been in his family for more than a century and is a frequent stop for presidential candidates of both parties. The nature of the event was not released, but it didn't appear that any current presidential candidates attended. The manager of the Puritan Backroom, Erik Zink, said in a written statement that the restaurant's top priorities are promoting health and excellent food safety and that he was confident it was doing everything possible to maintain those practices. Zink also said the restaurant had reached out to the family of the person who died to express "our condolences" for the death, which he blamed on unidentified causes. After the outbreak, the Manchester Health Department conducted an inspection of the restaurant. Officials determined there was no ongoing norovirus risk to the public. The symptoms of norovirus include diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomach pain, health officials said. The state sees 50 to 75 norovirus outbreaks every year. Claim: 18 sickened at popular New Hampshire primary campaign stop.
[EX A]: A norovirus sickened 18 people after a private function last month at a restaurant co-owned by a Democratic congressman that is popular with presidential candidates campaigning in the New Hampshire primary, state health officials said.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Employees of Novartis Pharma K.K. (NPKK) transferred some data from research centers to a Tokyo hospital when that data should have been sent directly without first passing through Novartis hands, according to a report by Japanese broadcaster NHK that was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. "NPKK is currently investigating the allegations," Novartis said in a statement. The data was from a not yet fully enrolled 55-patient trial testing the Novartis cancer drug Tasigna, the company said. "Novartis Pharma K.K. is aware of the media report regarding a small investigator-initiated clinical study ... conducted to assess side effects in patients with chronic myelocytic leukemia," Novartis said in a statement. "NPKK has conducted employee trainings on proper protocol related to investigator-initiated clinical studies and believes that any involvement of our medical representatives in investigator-initiated clinical studies is inappropriate." The University of Tokyo Hospital said it was re-examining test results it had received but had uncovered no evidence that Novartis employees had manipulated any of the data during the transfers, according to the Wall Street Journal report. Claim: Novartis employees may have violated trial protocol in Japan.
[EX A]: Swiss drugmaker Novartis said on Friday it was looking into a report that employees of is Japanese unit may have violated clinical trial protocol by handling data from a small independent study of one of its cancer drugs.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: This story does a good job of providingthe cost of theXTag respiratory panel, $300-400,and cost-related information. The testis relatively expensive but is also covered by insurance. The story presents several benefits of thexTag test. Itis 1) more sensitive and more comprehensive than currently available tests and diagnostic procedures, 2) it can address the problem of under-diagnosis of the flu in vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, 3) it can inform treatment decisions by potentially reducing the inappropriate use of antibiotics while indicating when they might be beneficial. An important caveat isthat it is not known whether diagnosing these viruses improves outcomes, i.e. decreased use of antibiotics, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths. The twomain drawbacks of the xTag test, that it is expensive and cantake up to a day or two to get the results, are presented. Expense is an importantissue given the volume of acute febrile illnesses in children, particularly if this test were given routinely in an outpatient setting. In addition, if the processing time at the specific location is is too long, the test may not have any practical benefit in the treatment decision window. This article providescomprehensiveinformation inan easily understandable way. For example, it provides thecontext/relevance of the xTag test by summarizing results published in a prestigious medical journal, describing how the test is administered to a patient andthe laboratory process used to analyze the sample. It also explains the key pieces of a diagnostic test, sensitivity and specificity. This article is topicalbecause the winter flu season is arriving. However,clarification of the type of patient and situation where this test would be most beneficial was missing. This test would be beneficial forchildren seen in emergency rooms or hospitalized with acute respiratoryillnesses,where making the correct diagnosis as rapidly as possible is essential. The test is generally not needed for most children inthe primary care setting whopresent with symptoms of a short-term flu. In these cases, good physician judgement will determine whether an acute illness is viral in most instances, precluding the need for antibiotics. Although the example of influenza treatment (as a 'missed opportunity') was given, this treatment would only decrease symptoms by 1-2 days, which would not be significant formost healthy children. This story draws information from a variety of credible sources, including the FDA, aresearcher who published resultsindicating that the flu is under-diagnosed in children,and an independent emergency room physician. Information from the manufacturer is also given. This article covers all of the bases on treatment diagnosis and treatment option. The flu can be diagnosed based upon clinical observations of signs and symptoms or by other availableflu tests. Treatment options, flu medicine, antibiotics or no treatment, are clearly indicated. This story provides good information about availability. The Xtag test is mainly used in hospitals and emergency rooms but can also be done in the primary care setting. Other important information on variability of the length of time needed to process the test, from hours to 1-2 days, was also provided. The xTag test is novel and the article handles this nicely. It is the only FDA approved product that can detect multiple viral strains that can cause acute respiratory diseases. Because an independent source was quoted, it appears the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release. Claim: A single test to detect many winter ailments
[EX A]:
This story does a good job of presenting accurate, comprehensive informationabout the xTag Respiratory Viral Panel. The xTagtest was recently approved by the FDA and is the first of its kind to provide early detectionof multiple respiratory viruses. These virusescan cause acute respiratory infections such as the common cold, influenza, bronchitis, croup, and pneumonia. The article succinctly describes the complex technology employed by thetest in easily understandable terms. The xTag test is presented in context of akey health issue: the under-diagnosis of the flu in vulnerable populations, such as children, versus the inappropriate and unneeded prescription antibiotics in cases where they are ineffective in treatingtheflu. This story takes a balanced approach in presenting the evidence supporting the pros and cons of the test. It could have been improved by stating that it is not necessary for most routine febrile illnesses in the outpatient setting. Overall, the article is well done and informative.