instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: The three western U.S. cities top the list of the 100 best towns for men in a new ranking compiled by Men's Health magazine, while Charleston, West Virginia, Philadelphia and Birmingham, Alabama are considered the worst. "Anytime we do a best and worst city ranking and a city comes in at the very top like this, it immediately says to us they were consistently strong across the board in pretty much all of the 38 criteria that we looked at," Men's Health Executive Editor Matt Marion said. Boise, which jumped from fifth place last year, scored high marks for the physical and mental health of its residents, its low crime rate and short commuting times - an average of just 18 minutes. "Boise finishing number one was interesting to us because it is a city that would have finished in the top 20, but to come in right at the top is impressive," Marion said. San Francisco, which consistently ranks high in the annual list, impressed with its small percentage of obese people, low number of smokers and highly educated and generally fit population. San Jose had very low death rates from cancer and heart disease, the lowest percentage of smokers in any of the 100 cities in the ranking, and not much crime. Plano, in Texas and Seattle rounded out the top five, followed by Burlington, Vermont, which dropped from the top spot last year. At the opposite end of the list, high cancer rates, violent crime and poor fitness levels assured Birmingham last place. In addition to Philadelphia and Charleston, West Virginia, the bottom five included Toledo, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri. New York ranked 33rd and Los Angeles was in the middle of the ranking. The magazine compiled the list, now in its 12th year, by ranking the cities on criteria ranging from the cost of living, number of jobless, obesity, crime and death rates, to air quality and the ratio of men to women. It used data from various sources including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, the National Center for Health Statistics, state cancer registries and federal crime statistics. "The things that we do focus on ultimately are the ones that will make a difference in terms of whether or not you will be happy and healthy," Marion said. The full list can be found here Claim: Idaho, California cities deemed best in U.S. for men.
answer:
U.S. men looking for the best place to find happiness, health and a good quality of life might consider heading to Boise, Idaho, or San Jose and San Francisco in northern California.

question:
Paragraph: The black rhinos died of salt poisoning following the decision by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to ignore water test results in Tsavo East National Park, the committee's report said. The deaths of the endangered animals, being moved to a more secure home in the face of the threat from poachers, were a major embarrassment to Kenya, which sells itself as destination for wildlife tourism. The inquiry said WWF, which donated $1 million for the relocation in June 2018, applied pressure on KWS to speed up the process in a bid to generate positive publicity and secure funding for itself from Germany. WWF denied the allegations in the inquiry report, which was made public last week, saying KWS had carried out hydrological surveys and given assurances the park was safe and suitable. "At no point either before or during the translocations were any issues raised about the quality of the water on the site," WWF said by email. "We would never push for a translocation to go ahead against the recommendations of the relevant experts. This was a tragedy we hope will never be repeated." The parliamentary committee's inquiry said the relocation took place during a period in 2018 when the term of one KWS board had ended and before a new one had begun, creating a lack of oversight. The report said KWS's former board of trustees had rejected the relocation three times in part because of the high salinity levels of the drinking water in the park. The report said Najib Balala, the minister of tourism and wildlife, should take overall responsibility for the rhinos' deaths because he delayed the appointment of the new KWS board. The minister's spokesman declined to comment. The KWS could not be immediately reached to comment. However, Richard Leakey, former chairperson of KWS, told the inquiry: "WWF-Kenya, as the funding entity, was alleged to have had a major interference onthe board resolution against the translocation, and consequently pushed for theexercise after the exit of the board." WWF said it was saddened by the loss of the rhinos and it fully recognized the "serious failings of this operation". "In response, we have strengthened existing practices and implemented brand new organizational guidelines to mitigate future risk as far as possible." Kenya had a rhino population of 1,258 in 2017 of which 745 were black rhinos, 510 were southern white rhinos and three were northern white rhinos, having grown from less than 400 rhinos in the 1980s. Poaching has risen in recent years across sub-Saharan Africa where well-armed criminal gangs have killed elephants for tusks and rhinos for horns. Often the animal parts are shipped to Asia for use in ornaments and medicines. Claim: WWF says it did not push for rhino relocation process where 11 died.
answer:
The World Wildlife Fund has rejected the findings of a Kenyan parliamentary inquiry that said the conservation group pushed Kenyan authorities to speed up a botched relocation of 14 rhinos last year that led to the deaths of 11 animals.

question:
Paragraph: "In the wake of a Oct. 1 shooting spree in Oregon that killed 10, many -- including President Barack Obama -- are calling for more gun control laws. ""There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America,"" Obama said in remarks the day of the shooting. ""So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence."" There is plenty of debate over the effectiveness of gun control laws, so we decided to dig into Obama's sweeping claim: that ""states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" We ran this claim past several experts and found that the statistic generally holds up, but the implications are less clear. Cause and effect The meat of the claim comes from a2015 National Journal investigation, which concluded that ""the states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths."" The report considered seven types of gun control: handgun permits, background checks, handgun registries, ""stand your ground"" laws, concealed carry permits, open carry permits and gun purchase waiting period. It found that states that had generally more restrictive laws within these categories generally had fewer annual gun deaths. Here's a chart by National Journal showing the states with the fewest and most gun deaths per 100,000 people, compared to each state's' gun laws (more blue = more restrictive laws). You shouldlook at the chart that shows all 50 states. There are some limitations to this kind of research, notably that they do not determine cause-and-effect: whether a state has fewer gun deaths because of the law, said Adam Winkler, a University of California Los Angeles law professor and second amendment expert. Other demographic characteristics -- such as education level, marital stability, rural or urban -- might explain the fewer gun deaths in a particular state. Setting that caveat aside, Winkler said Obama's statement is true. There are also a couple of outliers to National Journal's report. For example, New Hampshire has some of the least restrictive gun laws but also the seventh-lowest gun death rate. An academic study published by the American Medical Association in 2013 found similar results: ""A higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state."" In a commentary on the 2013 study, Garen Wintemute, director of UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program, pointed out that the correlation between restrictive laws and fewer deaths ""essentially disappeared"" when firearm ownership rates were taken into account. ""Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association,"" Wintemute wrote. ""But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low there will be less opposition to them and firearm ownership confounds the association."" While wary of making such a general claim, Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said Obama's claim is generally accurate. In many states, individual gun laws have shown to be associated with fewer gun-related deaths. He linked us to some of his own research showing, for example, a reduction in murders committed with firearms followed a handgun purchase permit law in Connecticut. In contrast, the repeal of a permit law in Missouri preceded a rise in firearm-caused murders. We looked for evidence to contradict Obama's statement, and found several complaints from those who favor gun rights. James Agresti, a gun control expert for the conservative-leaning think tank Just Facts, wrote in an email to reporters that statements like Obama's are ""meaningless"" and ""subjective and ill-defined,"" linking to a Just Facts article that saidclassification systems that evaluate gun laws state-by-state can be ""haphazard."" Agresti added that the claim ignores the number of lives saved by defensive gun use, and the fact that some states with highest gun-ownership ratesalso have low homicide rates. Overall, though, we found nothing that offered an outright contradiction to the National Journal analysis. States with laws that restrict guns do tend to have lower death rates, as Obama said. Suicide vs. homicide A notable critique of Obama's claim is that these gun deaths include suicides -- which account for more than half of all gun deaths -- and Obama was delivering remarks in the context of how to prevent future mass shootings. While research does show that gun laws correlate with fewer firearm-caused suicides, there's not universal agreement on the effect of gun laws on murders. In his commentary on the 2013 study, Wintemute noted that the vast majority of the observed decrease in gun deaths were suicides. Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker did a calculation of their own and found that when suicides are taken out of the picture, there's not as clear a correlation between more gun laws and fewer non-suicide gun deaths. (They rated Obama's statement as two out of four Pinocchios.) Obama's use of this factoid is deceptive because he was selling gun control as a way to stymie murders, not suicide by gun, said David Kopel, a gun rights advocate and research director of the conservative Independence Institute in Denver. He likened it to a car salesman telling a family a car is ""safe, according to government studies."" The family takes this to mean the car will protect them in an accident, but the salesman was actually referring to the fact that studies have found the car to be safe for the environment. Experts do, though, see reason to believe that stronger gun laws will reduce homicides, as well, even if the research isn't conclusive yet. One survey of about 150 researchers actively publishing work on guns found that 71 percent believe that strong gun laws reduce the number of homicides, compared with12 percent who disagree. While there are always exceptions, ""the research on the whole shows that if you make it more difficult for individuals -- especially individuals with a criminal background -- to obtain firearms you will prevent some gun-related criminal offenses,"" said Jay Corzine, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida who studies homicide and violent crime. Our ruling Obama said, ""States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" Research shows that the more gun laws a state has, the fewer gun deaths there are. Obama gets some wiggle room because he said ""tend to"" as opposed to making a definitive statement. The problem is, however, that this is an overly general statement. The research doesn't prove a universal cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and fewer gun deaths; it might just be a correlation. Some laws are more effective than others, and other cultural, demographic or socioeconomic factors might be the driving force behind the number of gun deaths in different states. Correction:This article has been updated to correct the spelling of James Agresti,to clarifyhis views and to provide links to his original commentaries." Claim: States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.
answer:
Obama said, "States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths." Research shows that the more gun laws a state has, the fewer gun deaths there are. Obama gets some wiggle room because he said "tend to" as opposed to making a definitive statement. The problem is, however, that this is an overly general statement. The research doesn't prove a universal cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and fewer gun deaths; it might just be a correlation. Some laws are more effective than others, and other cultural, demographic or socioeconomic factors might be the driving force behind the number of gun deaths in different states.