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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs and the Illinois Department of Public Health are reviewing the case of the resident with the flu-like illness. Officials say the resident of the home 312 miles (500 kilometers) southwest of Chicago has received medical treatment and is recovering. Officials say no other cases of the illness contracted by breathing infected water vapor have been identified. Staff members are monitoring residents for respiratory illnesses. Officials have notified residents, staff members, and relations and representatives of residents. The last case of Legionnaires' at Quincy was in 2018. An outbreak that began in 2015 caused the deaths of 13 residents and sickened dozens more. Then-Gov. Bruce Rauner faced withering criticism for not doing enough in response to the crisis. Claim: Legionnaires' case identified at Quincy veterans' home.
[A]: Gov. J.B. Pritzker's administration is investigating a case of Legionnaires' diseases at the veterans' home in Quincy, the site of 13 deaths from the malady starting with a 2015 outbreak.

[Q]: Paragraph: The story quotes one price estimate of about $250 for the testing. We would have liked more detail about whether new details on accuracy of the tests might change their status in the marketplace, or whether insurability status might change. Parents who fear their child may inherit gender-linked disorders, such as hemophilia, could use this test earlier in pregnancy and possibly avoid more invasive procedures, such as amniocentesis. Amniocentesis carries a risk of miscarriage. We would have liked some numbers about how many women in the US are facing this dilemma; the situations that carry benefit are few. The average gestational "age" at enrollment in prenatal care in the US is after the window in which most of these tests are marketed. So that means if a couple did not know that they needed to think about X-linked mental retardation "fragile X" (which affect males) or hemophilia, the use of the test would not really be integrated into their care. Could have been more skeptical of why they are really being marketed closer to entertainment ultrasounds than medical care. Yes, the story lists potential harms. These range from inaccuracy, because the tests are unregulated and the laboratories don't have to meet medical standards, to the potential for abortions based on fetal gender. This story does not evaluate the quality of the evidence in the new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which prompted the headlines. We applaud some of the details, giving consumers information about the lawsuit about one consumer product, but the discussion leaves readers confused about how to evaluate reliability. We're surprised that the story didn't point out in absolute terms that 5 of every 100 tests of girls and 1 of every 100 boys will be wrong 6 out of a hundred multiplied by millions of pregnancies a year! That's a lot of errors even if uptake is minimal. This story balances the potential for danger in giving parents early information about the sex of a fetus and the genuine benefit for some in avoiding more invasive testing when a condition is ruled out by knowing the gender information. The story quoted four sources, in addition to the study's lead author. The story explains how parents who fear a sex-linked genetic problem for their fetus must balance risk against benefit in existing alternatives.It did not do a very detailed job of comparing how the new approach could compare, especially considering there is a risk of inaccurate results in the new approach. The hypothetical target group for these tests is much, much smaller than the broader use is and might become. It did do a better job than the Reuters story in describing other tests (urine tests) that have been developed. Yes, the story explains there are a variety of tests that have been widely available to consumers. But the story could have done a better job of connecting the dots for readers. Exactly how does one get a blood test done for a home test kit? Raises questions like: do I go to a lab? Finger stick? Are their costs other than the test? Shipping? Do I do this at home myself? Working with my medical care team? How soon do I get the results?, etc. Process of using several common kits could have been better described. The new research was on testing that is not novel, but by surveying 57 other studies, they reached a new conclusion about overall accuracy and how early in pregnancy it could predict gender. The story did not rely on a release. Claim: Test Can Tell Fetal Sex at 7 Weeks, Study Says
[A]: The story outlines how new research about an existing family of consumer blood tests shows accuracy at seven weeks into pregnancy for determining the sex of a fetus. What the story also tells is the complicated weighing of risks and benefits that parents may need to use, since the consumer tests and their laboratories are not regulated by the FDA. We would have liked more information in here about which precise forms of testing among the 57 studies analyzed were most reliable and the quality of the evidence in the Journal of the American Medical Association survey. Earlier sex-determination in pregnancy could lead to parents choosing (or trying to choose) the gender they prefer. Internationally, it is already clear that some parents in China and India are deliberately choosing male babies, and aborting female fetuses. The research reported on, a survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association, does not directly address these larger ethical implications. But the study's lead author, Diana Bianchi, does stress that she wants to examine "why people are buying these things" and the consequences of consumer access to over-the-counter testing for fetal gender. The New York Times story goes a bit further than the competing Reuters story in exploring how consumers may use the testing.

[Q]: Paragraph: Western tourists kiss during sunset near Kuta beach on the Indonesian resort island of Bali in this May 28, 2005 file photo. REUTERS/Darren Whiteside German drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim failed to convince an expert panel that its pill increased sexual desire enough to win approval. "The efficacy was not sufficiently robust to justify the risks," said Dr. Julia Johnson, the panel's chairwoman and head of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Women reported depression, fainting, fatigue and other problems in company studies of the drug known chemically as flibanserin. The once-a-day pill, taken at bedtime, is the latest attempt to find a female counterpart to Pfizer Inc's Viagra, the blockbuster blue pill for men. Drugmakers have been searching for a medicine to improve women's sex lives since Viagra successfully debuted 12 years ago. The market for a "pink Viagra" could stretch into the billions of dollars. But some doctors and advocates worry that pharmaceutical companies are playing on women's insecurities to convince them they need a pill to improve their sex lives. "Low sexual desire is not a disease," said Leonore Tiefer, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York University, reading to the advisers from a petition opposing approval of flibanserin. The Food and Drug Administration will make the final decision on whether to approve the pill and usually follows the advice of its advisory panels. Privately held Boehringer wants clearance to sell its pill by prescription for premenopausal women with a persistent, bothersome and unexplained lack of sex drive. "Women deserve the option to choose a safe and effective pharmacological therapy for this distressing condition," said Dr. Anita Clayton, a Boehringer consultant and psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia. The drug, originally developed as an antidepressant, is believed to act on brain chemicals thought to play a role in sexual response, the company said. But the advisory committee of seven women and four men voted 11-0 that the drug's risks and benefits were unacceptable and 10-1 that effectiveness data was lacking. FDA reviewers, speaking before the panel voted, said flibanserin failed to increase sexual desire as measured by women's daily diary entries in two company studies. Boehringer said another analysis, based on a survey of women's responses, showed a jump in sex drive and lower distress levels with the drug. Women also reported slightly more satisfying sexual experiences an average of 4.5 per month compared with 2.8 before taking the medicine. For placebo patients, the rate rose to 3.7 during the six-month studies. Nearly 15 percent of women stopped taking flibanserin before the study ended due to possible side effects. Boehringer said most of the reported problems were mild. Panel members, however, said they were worried women would take the drug for months or years with unknown risks. "Long-term use needs to be better evaluated," said Dr. Kathleen Hoeger, a panelist and associate professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center. The drug's proposed brand name is Girosa. It is not yet approved anywhere in the world. "We are disappointed with the advisory committee's recommendations and will work with the FDA to address questions raised," Dr. Christopher Corsico, Boehringer's U.S. medical director, said in a statement. While the committee voted against the drug, members encouraged Boehringer and others to continue pursuing sex medications for women. "Indeed this is a significant need for women, and finding a medicine that will benefit women is critical," Johnson said. Drugmakers have tested various ways to boost female libido, but women's sex lives have proved difficult to target with medication. Male impotence pills including Viagra work by widening blood vessels to increase the blood flow needed for an erection. Pfizer dropped tests of Viagra in females in 2004 after studies failed to show it helped women. That same year, an FDA advisory panel voted in 2004 against recommending approval for a testosterone patch made by Procter & Gamble Co, citing a lack of evidence for long-term safety. The patch was approved in Europe and has been sold to Warner Chilcott. Another U.S. drugmaker, BioSante, is developing a testosterone skin gel to treat a decline in libido in menopausal women. The company estimates the U.S. market for treating female sexual dysfunction tops $2 billion annually. Claim: Female sex pill flops with U.S. advisers.
[A]:
A pink sex pill offered little help to women and came with unacceptable risks, U.S. government advisers agreed on Friday, another setback in the search for a drug to boost female libido.