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: "As Donald Trump amps up attacks on the Clinton Foundation, Democrats are pointing out that Trump himself has given to the nonprofit he now calls a pay-to-play operation. Recently released emails between Hillary Clinton's aides when she was secretary of state and officials at the Clinton Foundation have demonstrated that some foundation donors did get access to Clinton, though there's no evidence of direct favors. Addressing the topic on NBC's Meet the Press, Barack Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe noted the Clinton Foundation's work on HIV/AIDS and malaria and Trump's own ties to the charity. ""The Clinton Foundation, I think it's a universal agreement, has done remarkable work around the world. I think Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000 to the foundation,"" he said. Plouffe is right that Trump gave at least $100,000 to the foundation, a fact that Trump and his campaign readily admit. One caveat: It appears that the money came through Trump's own foundation, not directly from Trump. The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It's not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump's daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump's gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation's donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. Breaking it down by dollar amount, however, Trump's total contribution isn't that big. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. In 2009, the Trump Foundation gave $926,750 to some 40 organizations (page 18). The Clinton Foundation received one of the largest gifts that year, matched or surpassed only by the Arnold Palmer Medical Center Foundation ($100,000), the New York Presbyterian Hospital ($125,000) and the Police Athletic League ($156,000). Altogether, the Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 according to the nonprofit's tax forms, Forbes found. Trump did not make any personal contributions to his foundations during this time. (Money for the Trump Foundation in these years came from others and from investment income.) Trump doesn't deny that he donated to the Clinton Foundation that he now calls a criminal enterprise. During the first GOP primary debate in August 2015, Trump voluntarily brought up his giving to the Clinton Foundation when asked about his previous donations to Hillary Clinton. ""When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me,"" Trump said. ""With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn't have a choice, because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn't know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world."" For the record, the Clintons did attend Trump's third wedding to Melania Knauss, but that occurred in 2005, four years before the $100,000 donation. A few months later, Trump gave pretty similar answers when he was asked to explain the Forbes article on his charitable giving record in late January. ""I did give to the Clinton Foundation. What I didn't know is they'd be using it for private aircraft and things like that. The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things and I thought it was going to do some good work. So, it didn't make any difference to me,"" he said on Jan. 31's Fox News Sunday. ""Again, I was a businessman and it was my obligation to get along with everybody, including the Clintons, including Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives."" Our ruling Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka's father-in-law) as a contributor. It's important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation. Claim: "David Plouffe Says ""Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000"" to the Clinton Foundation."

Output: "Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka's father-in-law) as a contributor. It's important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation."

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Does the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an American bastion of serious scientific research with dozens of Nobel laureates among its alumni, really offer its over-achieving students something called a "Pirate Certificate"? That's the claim that the History Hustle Facebook page makes in a widely-shared January 2018 meme that reads: Want to be a pirate? Massachusetts Institute of Technology awards official "Pirate Certificates" to students who complete courses in archery, pistol shooting, sailing and fencing. It's true. Since the Fall semester of 2011, the university's Physical Education department has been handing out physical "pirate certificates" to any student undergraduate or graduate who has successfully completed courses in archery, fencing, pistol/rifle shooting and sailing. The department appears to hold frequent "Pirate Induction" days; and its Facebook page shows a fairly steady stream of extremely happy-looking MIT students showing off their new pirate certificates, invariably dressed in pirate garb, some of which appears to be provided by the school for the occasion. The certificate itself is made of "faux parchment," according to the Slice of MIT alumni blog, and has this tongue-in-cheek wording: This document certifies that the below-mentioned salty dog has fulfilled the Physical Education General Institute Requirement by completing Archery, Fencing, Pistol and Sailing [and] therefore is no longer a lily-livered landlubber. And so, MIT Physical Education Confers upon [STUDENT'S NAME] The Pirate Certificate, with all its privileges and obligations. Given at the swashbucklin' Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ahoy, Avast and finally, Arrrrrr! Jacob Hurwitz a 2014 MIT graduate and proud owner of the document shown above told us that the pirate certificate was a "legend" that had "been around" forever, with some students reputedly printing off t-shirts claiming to be pirates, after completing the four key physical education courses. "As best as I can tell," Hurwitz told us by email, "the pirate's license was probably a joke invented by students" before being made official by university authorities. A survey sent out to students in late 2010 shows that the pirate certificate had been requested by a "student focus group," and that the names "pirate award" and "pirate degree" were also considered. Despite not fulfilling the criteria by completing the four physical education prerequisites, Matt Damon became the most famous recipient of the MIT pirate certificate to date, when he attended the university's graduation ceremony in 2016 and delivered the commencement address: Claim: "MIT offers a ""pirate certificate"" to students who complete four physical education courses."

Output: The prestigious university counts among its alumni Nobel laureates, leaders of science and industry, and a fleet of certified swashbucklers.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: On 24 December 2017, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration was scaling back an Obama-era policy that ramped up the use of fines on skilled nursing facilities for actions that endangered vulnerable patients: The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or place them in grave risk of injury, part of a broader relaxation of regulations under the president. The shift in the Medicare program's penalty protocols was requested by the nursing home industry. The American Health Care Association, the industry's main trade group, has complained that under President Barack Obama, federal inspectors focused excessively on catching wrongdoing rather than helping nursing homes improve. As would be expected, the Times report (which was published on Christmas Eve) resulted in a number of aggregated stories crafted to play up the outrage angle with sensational headlines reporting, essentially, that the president was going to kill Grandma on Christmas. Over-the-top wording as in this headline, "Trump Will Permit Abuse Of Elderly In Nursing Homes," prompted readers to inquire whether the story was true. Elder abuse is a crime, and that has not changed. However, the Trump administration did begin the process of rolling back an Obama administration policy that uses hefty fines as leverage against facilities that cause serious harm to patients. The Trump administration issued two Notices of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRMs) in May and June of 2017 which will reverse rules requiring the presence of a designated facility grievance officer to handle allegations of wrongdoing, and prohibiting nursing homes from requiring patients to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition of admission. These changes do not mean that rampant, unchecked abuse will be allowed to take place, as some headlines have suggested however. In November 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) also issued a moratorium on a requirement that nursing homes develop a baseline care plan for new patients within 48 hours of admission, along with seven other requirements on things like behavioral health care, psychotropic medication and facility assessments. The effects of the rollbacks are not yet known, but Toby Edelman, senior attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, told the Times, "They've pretty much emasculated enforcement, which was already weak." According to federal records reviewed by the Times, four in every ten nursing homes have been cited at least once since 2013 for a serious violations such as neglect, mistreatment and failing to protect residents from accidents and bed sores. CMS put an 18-month moratorium on a requirement that nursing homes develop a basic care plan for new patients within 48 hours. This rule was put in place after the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General found in a study published in 2014 that one in five Medicare patients experienced medical complications within an average 15 days of admission to nursing facilities, most of which were serious, preventable and resulted in millions in additional medical expenses billed to Medicare. However in a memo to state health departments, CMS noted that the moratorium does not mean violation of requirements will result in no enforcement. Requirements that fall under the purview of the moratorium, like the baseline care plan, will simply be handled differently until the end of the moratorium period. In a statement, Center for Medicare Advocacy policy attorney Dara Valanejad told us: The Center for Medicare Advocacy is greatly concerned by the Administration's actions rolling back the minimum standards of care set out in the Medicare and Medicaid Requirements of Participation. CMS should be protecting the rights of residents, who should be its primary focus, not referring to the nursing home industry as its "customer." The minimum nursing home standards were implemented because there was an unmet need for urgent resident protections. For example, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported in 2014 that one in five residents experienced harm within the first month of admission (the average was 15.5 days) to a skilled nursing facility, 20 percent of these cases resulted in life-sustaining interventions or death, and 59 percent of these adverse events were "clearly or likely preventable." The Baseline Care Plan, one of the Phase 2 Requirements that CMS placed an 18-month moratorium on, requires nursing homes to develop a basic care plan within 48 hours to address the type of problems that the OIG found. How can nursing home residents and their families feel safe knowing that such vital requirements, meant to protect them from harm, injury, or death, will not be properly enforced? Per the Times report, the American Health Care Association sent a letter to then-President Elect Trump in December 2016 asking for "relief" from regulations and complained to CMS: Rather than spending quality time with their patients, the providers are spending time complying with regulations that get in the way of caring for their patients and doesn't increase the quality of care they provide. Claim: President Trump rolled back rules protecting residents of nursing homes.
Output: We reached out to the AHCA for comment, but have not received a response.