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: "The water affects everyone," she said, which is why she believes her job is so important. Reese is studying public health and environmental health at East Carolina University in North Carolina. She will be an intern for the East Shore department, working on the Connecticut shoreline until the end of July. Reese spends her Tuesday mornings driving around to all the public and private natural swimming areas in Branford, North Branford and East Haven, collecting water samples and putting them on ice in her purple cooler. The samples are then collected by state Department of Public Health couriers and brought to the state lab in Rocky Hill for testing. Water quality testing has always been a priority for the East Shore department every summer, but this year, Alex Cinotti, the assistant director of health, has something he's trying to prove. Every year, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the department collects weekly water samples from 12 water bodies used for swimming, both freshwater and saltwater, to ensure bacteria levels are low enough for public safety. Samples are collected and tested once a week, and as long as bacteria levels fall below state-determined risk levels, the beaches and other water bodies remain open. This year, however, Cinotti would like to take the sampling a step further to show a direct correlation between rainfall and elevated bacteria levels, he said, as rain will often wash contaminants into public waters and cause bacteria levels to rise. "This is our opportunity to take samples and establish a pattern," Cinotti said. "Bacteria is bacteria and we consider it pathogenic." As such, in addition to the weekly sampling of water, Cinotti said that the department is collecting samples after heavy rains to see if bacteria levels rise after rainfall. This kind of analysis could not be done last summer, Cinotti said, because there were few rain events due to the drought. On the state level, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection will close public beaches after a significant amount of rainfall, in anticipation of potentially higher bacteria levels. Scott Szalkiewicz, a health program supervisor for the state Health Department, told the Register last summer that because samples take 24 hours to process, it's helpful to be able to close beaches before test results come in when officials believe bacteria levels will be high based on the amount of rain and visual indicators. The East Shore District Health Department serves Branford, North Branford and East Haven. The 12 bathing waters surveyed each week include the east and west East Haven beaches, the Clark Avenue beach, Branford Point, Stony Creek, Hotchkiss Grove, Turtle Bay, Sunrise Cove, Lanphier Cove, Cedar Lake, Linsley Lake and Clear Lake. According to water quality records from the East Shore District Health Department in 2016, there was only one time when bacteria levels reached a level at which one of the beaches had to close. Sunrise Cove reached a level of 1,000 colonies of bacteria in the sample of 100 milliliters of water on Aug. 2, 2016, according to the records. Cinotti said that the safe levels for salt water are 104 colonies of bacteria per 100 milliliters of water and 235 colonies for fresh water per 100 milliliters of water. Some things that cause heightened bacteria levels include wild animal and dog feces, sewer overflows and leaks, Cinotti said. Rain may wash contaminants such as sewer overflows, nitrogen-rich pollutants and goose and dog feces into the Sound and other bathing water bodies. Potential health risks from swimming in water with high levels of bacteria include possible infections to open wounds and gastrointestinal illness when water is accidentally swallowed, Cinotti said. He added that it's possible swimmers could contract eye- or ear-related illnesses from high levels of bacteria. "We really need to protect children," Cinotti said. "They are more vulnerable than adults." ___ Online: http://bit.ly/2rFTp4s ___ Information from: New Haven Register, http://www.nhregister.com Claim: Officials study link between rain and bacteria in water.
Example Output: For Kellyn Reese, waking up on Tuesday mornings and going to the beach because it's her job is a nice perk of being a summer intern at the East Shore District Health Department.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party," Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats "move to a very liberal program, like universal health care." That's delicate and, Carter admitted, even contradictory advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. "Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past," Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California's environmental policies limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must "appeal to independents" who are souring on the current administration. Trump's job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don't embrace the liberal base: "I don't think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee," and he insisted that he's not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter's analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy's most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter's latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a "public option" health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration's latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump's policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. "America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail," Carter said, "but for the next two years, I can't predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off unfortunately." Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he's chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel's investigation into whether Trump's presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. "I have his email address," Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, "Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government." Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he's not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. "Let them be part of the community of nations," he said. "I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea." ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Claim: Jimmy Carter: To beat Trump, Dems cannot scare off moderates.
Example Output: Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don't go too far to the left.

Example Input: Paragraph: "The article provides costs of ""regular"" colonoscopy and that of CT colography. The article does state that ""about the same number of advanced polyps"" were found in each group (comparing virtual to regular colonoscopy). It then goes on to give absolute numbers of people with an advanced polyp (the total number of people within groups is also given so that an absolute percentage could be calculated). The story also describes how many people required a regular colonoscopy after virtual colonoscopy and how many people decided to have their polyps watched. The story provides harms of ""regular"" colonscopy, including the number of people in the study who experienced a perforated bowel and those who also required surgery to repair it. Less objective harms, like embarrassment or inconvenience, are not reported,but are also harder to measure. For virtual colonoscopy, the story includes a reference to a concern that radiation from the CT scanner might be a harm. It also implies that because virtual colonoscopy did not measure smaller growths, this could be a harm if that growth somehow went on to develop into cancer. The story also mentions that a bowel prep is needed for the virtual test, which is often a drawback for people. The story does not mention that it's quite possible and even likely that if a regular colonoscopy is needed, it will probably be done on a different day requiring the prep to be repeated. While the study arranged to have these performed on the same day, this is not likely in the real world. The article doesn't mention the type of study that the findings are based on. This study was not a randomized trial, which is important, and is not discussed. Readers don't know how strong these findings are or are not. The information provided by the article about the condition in general is correct and not exaggerated. However, the article could have been improved if a discussion about how much colon cancer screening could benefit an average person was included. While it's true that colon cancer screening can reduce the chance of getting or dying from colon cancer, most people aren't aware that the absolute reduction in risk is quite small. For some, this relatively small benefit may not be worth the risks or inconvenience of the procedure. As above. Multiple sources are used, at least two of whom don't appear to be affiliated with the research. The story also cites potential conflicts of interest of the researchers. No other screening options are discussed (like FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or a combination of the two). Additionally, the option of not screening is always valid when describing a screening program and was not mentioned. The article states virtual colonoscopy (or CT colography) is currently available at some hospitals and centers. The article also describes that many, if not most, insurers don't currently pay for this. The story doesn't provide information on when virtual colonoscopy started to be used. But, perhaps more importantly, it does make it clear that virtual colonoscopy would be a new option for colon cancer screening with new evidence. Since there a sources of information not affiliated with the research, it appears this story does not rely on a press release." Claim: Studies endorse 'virtual colonoscopy'
Example Output:
The article describes a new study that supports similar accuracy of virtual colonoscopy (or CT colography) cused to screen for colon cancer compared to traditional colonoscopy. The article does a nice job of describing benefits (providing absolute numbers), costs, availability, novelty, a range of harms, and sources. The article could have been improved by describing the strength of the evidence. For instance, the results are not based on a randomized trial, yet without this information or any other information about study design, readers don't know how strong these results are. The article also could have included a discussion about absolute risks and benefits of colon cancer screening. While there is no obvious disease mongering, the absolute reduction in risk of dying from colon cancer due to screening is relatively small and some may find the risk or inconvenience of the procedure not worth the benefit. Similarly, presenting the option of not screening is always valid when discussing any screening program.