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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The story says the procedure to insert stents costs from $11,000 to $41,000 in the U.S. The story makes clear there was no significant difference between a sham procedure or stent insertion, but it only describes the benefit as "less pain." We would like to see how the pain was measured, some numbers on how much pain was reduced, and how many patients benefitted in each group. The story briefly mentions there are potential harms, including death. The story describes the study's methods in some detail the sham surgery of the control group, for instance and mentions the size of the study and the characteristics of the subjects. It adds heft to the sense that this was a very good study with multiple reactions from expert sources "humbling," "unbelievable," "impressive" and "very well conducted." Importantly, it quotes one source describing a few desired measures that the study didn't address, such as whether stents would be more effective in patients with more severe disease or who were studied for a longer period of time. The story could have done a better job of explicitly calling attention to the relatively small number of participants and the need for confirmatory follow-up studies. Heart disease is very common in our society and opening up blocked arteries is a common almost routine procedure. No disease mongering occurred in the article. We were pleased to see discussion from many experts, however, the story left out two important potential conflicts of interest. The story states that: Dr. William E. Boden, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, called the results "unbelievable." Readers should have been informed that Boden has received fees from Abbott, a major stent device maker. Also, the story states that: Dr. David Maron, a cardiologist at Stanford University, praised the new study as "very well conducted" but said that it left some questions unanswered. The participants had a profound blockage but only in one artery, he noted, and they were assessed after just six weeks. The story didn't disclose that Dr. Maron is an "employee of and stockholder in Cardiovascular Services of America, which provides outpatient cardiac catheterization and computed tomography angiography services," which was disclosed here. The story (and the study) suggest that medication can manage pain from blocked arteries. Stenting procedures are clearly widely available in the U.S. and across the world. What's less clear, the story says, is whether guidelines or practice for stenting will change in the U.S.: "The idea that stenting relieves chest pain is so ingrained that some experts said they expect most doctors will continue with stenting, reasoning that the new research is just one study." We thought this was an interesting point and are glad it was included. The many expressions of surprise by practicing cardiologists makes clear that the study offers a novel finding. The story did not rely on the news release. Claim: 'Unbelievable': Heart Stents Fail to Ease Chest Pain

Output: This New York Times story describes startling news that a very common procedureinserting a stent to open a blocked blood vesseldoes not add benefit over medication in patients with angina. Angina is chest pain due to blocked heart arteries, and is common among people with heart disease. Sourcing is a strong point for this story: It features perspective from many American cardiologists who were shocked to learn of the negative results from this study. However, two important potential conflicts of interest among the sources were not disclosed. In addition, the story contains lots of helpful detail on the limitations of the study, the possibility that placebo effects are at play, and how medical practice may or may not change as a result. It also discussed the costs and potential harms of stenting procedures. That said, the story could have provided more information on what the study itself measuredand what, precisely, the results were. The Wall Street Journal story, which we also reviewed, was stronger on this point. Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans so any news about treating aspects of heart disease, such as blocked arteries, is newsworthy. In addition, this story suggests that stenting common, but expensive is a prime example of over-treatment. Also the procedure carries some risk and may be causing complications if overused.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: NCR Corp. will fund the dredging of contaminated sediments and removal of an aging dam in the Kalamazoo River under an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Michigan, officials told The Associated Press ahead of an official announcement. "This is a big step forward toward cleaning up the river," said John Irving, a deputy assistant administrator in the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The Kalamazoo is polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, from paper recycling mills. Used for ink removal, the chemicals were discharged into the river from the 1950s through the mid-1970s. They also seeped into groundwater and surface waters from landfills where mill waste was dumped. In addition to the river, the contamination zone in Allegan and Kalamazoo counties includes a roughly 3-mile (5-kilometer) section of a tributary called Portage Creek, as well as mill properties, riverbanks and floodplains. It is on the federal Superfund list of hazardous sites. Signs posted along the river warn anglers not to eat the fish they catch. The EPA has overseen the removal of nearly 450,000 cubic yards (344,000 cubic meters) of soil and sediment from the area since 1998, in addition to cleaning up 7 miles (11 kilometers) of the river and riverbanks. Eighty-two acres (33 hectares) of landfills containing PCBs have been covered with layers of clay, topsoil and vegetation to prevent the toxins from leaching into groundwater. But much remains to be done. The agreement between NCR and the government calls for the company to pay at least $135.7 million for cleanup work that is expected to take an additional 10-15 years. Among the tasks: dismantling Trowbridge Dam in Allegan County. The dam, which was built in 1898 to supply electric power to Kalamazoo, is in poor shape and has been over-topped by high water. It is the highest-priority dam removal planned in Michigan, according to the state Department of Natural Resources, which set aside $2.9 million in May to get the project underway. The first step is to stabilize the structure so that it won't collapse while a contractor dredges PCB-laced sediments from a 2.4-mile (3.9-kilometer) river section upstream, which is expected to take three years, said Paul Ruesch, the EPA's on-site coordinator. NCR funds will pay for that work and for razing the dam when the sediment removal is complete, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark told the AP. "You want to get that sediment out before taking the dam out, so you're not letting the sediments wash further downstream," he said. The removal of tainted soils in several floodplain spots is also funded under the deal. And the company will also pay $76.5 million to the EPA to cover past and future costs of the river cleanup; $27 million to other federal and state agencies for damages to natural resources; and $6 million to the state for past and future costs. The proposed settlement was filed in federal court Wednesday. The public will get 30 days to comment, after which the government agencies could make revisions before requesting final court approval. NCR spokesman Scott Sykes said the company had no comment. The agreement represents a significant milestone in the overall cleanup, which is expected to end up costing about $851 million, Clark said. Payment negotiations are continuing with other companies that share responsibility for the pollution, including Georgia-Pacific, International Paper and Weyerhaeuser. The Kalamazoo River project is among those on the Superfund list designated by the Trump administration for special attention because of cleanup delays, Irving said. "This settlement represents substantial progress in the cleanup and restoration of the Kalamazoo River," said Liesl Clark, Director of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. In addition to protecting public health and the environment, she said, it will fund "projects to restore natural resources and help compensate the public for lost recreational opportunities within this important Southwest Michigan watershed." While "extremely welcome," the deal won't raise enough money to finish the cleanup and agencies should continue pressing the polluters to do more, said Kenneth Kornheiser, president of the Kalamazoo River Watershed Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. "I appreciate the monumental size of the problem, but somebody created the problem and needs to be responsible for remediating the damage," he said. ___ Follow John Flesher on Twitter: https://twitter.com/johnflesher Claim: Company to pay $245M toward cleanup of Kalamazoo River PCBs.

Output: One of the companies responsible for polluting an 80-mile (129-kilometer) stretch of river and floodplains in southwestern Michigan with toxic chemicals will pay at least $245.2 million to advance a cleanup effort that began more than 20 years ago, federal officials said Wednesday.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas suggested that Barack Obama's administration bears some responsibility for the mass shooter in a Texas town acquiring guns. In a late-night Nov. 6, 2017, interview with Shannon Bream of Fox News, the Republican senator said that he'd spent the day comforting residents of Sutherland Springs, where the shooter killed 26 people in a church. Cruz said he felt his anger rising on his return flight to Washington ""because,"" Cruz told Bream, ""this should have been stopped beforehand. Under federal law, it was illegal for this individual to purchase a firearm. He had a conviction for a crime that's punishable by more than a year in prison and he had a conviction for multiple domestic violence crimes. Both of those, it's already ineligible. ""But several things happened,"" Cruz said. ""Number one, the Air Force, the Obama administration, didn't report those convictions to the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. That's an endemic problem; it's a problem with the federal government, it's a problem with the states. ""And so, when he went in to buy the guns, they ran the background check and they didn't find it because it wasn't in the database. But I'll tell you we could have prevented this. In 2013, in the wake of Sandy Hook, I joined with Chuck Grassley, we introduced legislation, it was called the Grassley-Cruz legislation, and it was aggressive legislation targeting felons and violent criminals to stop them from getting guns."" Cruz went on: ""There were a couple elements of that legislation that were critical. One, it mandated that federal agencies including the Air Force report to the NICS because that was a problem back then. But two, and this is an even more critical piece, if it had been reported to the background database, when he went into Academy to buy this, these weapons, he lied on the forms. That is a felony to lie on those forms. The Obama administration didn't prosecute those cases. In 2010,"" Cruz said, ""48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They prosecuted only 44 of them."" Readers request fact-check We're not checking all of what Cruz said though PolitiFact in Washington found Cruz claim's in the interview that Democrats filibustered legislation that would've resulted in the Texas church shooter being in prison rather than wreaking havoc. Readers asked us if Cruz was correct about the very few prosecutions of individuals for lying while buying a gun from a licensed dealer. Previous fact-checks A 1993 law requires a criminal history background check by the FBI or a state agency. If a potential buyer fails the check, the gun sale is denied and the case is referred to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the lead investigative agency in gun enforcement. The automated national instant background check system began operating in 1998. Some perspective: In 2013, our colleagues at PolitiFact Virginia reviewed federal reports before concluding that the Justice Department hadn't been prioritizing perjury charges in connection with background checks for at least two administrations. During George W. Bush's presidency, there had been 70,000 denials for gun purchases a year and some 15/100th of 1 percent of such cases were prosecuted. In the first two years of Obama's presidency, 8/100th of 1 percent of such cases were prosecuted. By email, a Cruz spokesman, Phil Novack, told us Cruz drew on a 2012 federal report to reach his 2010 figures. Novack noted too that when Cruz made a similar claim in 2013, the Fact Checker at The Washington Post confirmed the declared 44 prosecutions based on information in the report. 2010 statistics In 2010, the report says, FBI background checks led to initial denials of 72,659 applications to purchase a gun--with 34,451 denials attributed to a person's felony indictment or conviction and 13,862 due to the person being a fugitive from justice--48,313 combined. But most of those denials never made it to prosecutorial consideration. The report says the ATF overturned, canceled or chose not to refer for further investigation 71,410 denial cases sent its way by the FBI; some 4,732 cases were then referred to field offices for further review. Ultimately, the report says, 62 cases were referred for federal prosecution with 18 of those not taken up by a prosecutor--which leaves 44. Then again, that doesn't mean 44 prosecutions proceeded. That's because a dozen referrals were still pending action by a prosecutor as of Dec. 13, 2011, the report says. Otherwise, an accompanying chart shows that the 44 possible prosecutions would have been down from 77 prosecutions the year before and 105 in 2008--and prosecutorial referrals also had declined through those years. By phone, we asked the report's author, Ron Frandsen, about the availability of more recent data. Frandsen, who works for the Missouri-based Regional Justice Information Service, said that to his knowledge, no analyses of post-2010 data have been funded. By email, Frandsen said that most likely, the 48,321 denied applications tallied for felony or fugitive reasons were found in FBI background checks after applicants failed to disclose such information on a form. ""FBI denials are referred to ATF, which investigates the cases deemed most worthy of possible prosecution. From the 2010 FBI denials, ATF referred 62 charges (against 33 people) to U.S. or state attorneys for possible prosecution,"" Frandsen said, involving nine different federal offenses and two to seven state offenses. Frandsen said Cruz was accurate in his reference to 48,000 denials. He said the reference to 44 prosecutions wasn't accurate because the ""44"" from the service's report refers to charges, not individual people, and those charges involved ""more than just felons and fugitives, and,"" Frandsen wrote, ""because some of the prosecutorial decisions were made by state attorneys."" There's more data available, PolitiFact reporters have noted, in a 2013 analysis of federal weapons cases by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, based at Syracuse University. The analysis doesn't mention background checks directly. But a chart lists 123 prosecutions in 2010 in which the lead charge was making false/fictitious statements in order to acquire a firearm or ammunition. The comparable count was 143 in 2011 and 170 in 2012, the chart states. The relevant law says it's unlawful for anyone acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer to knowingly make false or fictitious oral or written statements intended to deceive the seller about the sale's legality. Explaining the few prosecutions Why has Uncle Sam seemingly been reluctant to prosecute these cases? A 2004 report from the Justice Department's inspector general provided several answers. It said ATF agents viewed the violations ""as distracting from more important cases, such as those involving firearms, traffickers, gangs, arson and explosives"" and ""saw little purpose in investigating a standard case in which the NICS successfully prohibited a person from purchasing a firearm."" The report also said that the cases lack ""jury appeal"" for prosecutors because it is difficult to prove that a prohibited person intentionally lied on the background check and in many parts of the nation ""juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle."" Frandsen told us he hasn't researched in depth why few violations get prosecuted. But, he said, such cases are hard to prosecute ""because the government must prove that the denied person intentionally failed to disclose a prohibition on the federal form (as opposed to just being unaware of what was on their record)."" Also, he said, there's a belief that the main purpose of the background check requirement is to prevent a firearm transfer to a prohibited person--and the additional step of prosecution ""should be reserved for the most dangerous people, especially those with an extensive criminal history."" Our ruling Cruz said: ""In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns"" and the Obama administration ""prosecuted only 44 of them."" There may have been even fewer federal prosecutions of such felons and fugitives, figures indicate, though Cruz failed to note that this paucity wasn't unique to one administration. It's also worth clarifying that we don't know if all 48,000 individuals knowingly misled the government. Few of the tallied background checks resulted in further investigation. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They [The Obama administration] prosecuted only 44 of them.
Output: "Cruz said: ""In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns"" and the Obama administration ""prosecuted only 44 of them."" There may have been even fewer federal prosecutions of such felons and fugitives, figures indicate, though Cruz failed to note that this paucity wasn't unique to one administration. It's also worth clarifying that we don't know if all 48,000 individuals knowingly misled the government. Few of the tallied background checks resulted in further investigation."