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.

Paragraph: The National Health Commission on Sunday also issued a notice asking for improvement in testing capacity and quality nationwide. Nine of the new cases were imported infections, data from commission showed. Authorities reported that total confirmed cases across mainland China had risen to 82,735 with 4,632 deaths as of April 18. The northeastern province of Heilongjiang has seen a rise in infected travellers arriving from Russia in recent weeks, and is now battling to contain a flare-up in local cases. Heilongjiang has reported 39 new local cases in the past 10 days, or more than 50% of all new 73 locally transmitted cases reported in the mainland during the same period. Most were related to one imported case in the provincial capital, Harbin. On Friday, 18 officials in Harbin, including a vice mayor, were punished. To help contain the outbreak, the Heilongjiang government is cautioning against family gatherings, cross infections at hospitals, and slow reporting in epidemic investigations, it said on the provincial government's website. "The biggest political task at present is to stop the rebound and spread of the epidemic," Wang Yongkang, vice governor of Heilongjiang, was quoted as saying. Elsewhere in mainland China, all areas in central Hubei province including Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak in China, are now considered low risk. However, a Beijing central district is seen as high-risk, according to a social media post by the State Council, or Cabinet. On April 15, the Chinese capital reported three local cases, all of which were linked to an imported infection. Areas that are considered of medium-risk in China include two districts in Harbin, the city of Suifenhe in Heilongjiang, two districts in the southern city of Guangzhou and Jiaozhou city in eastern Shandong province. Separately, authorities reported 44 new asymptomatic cases of coronavirus, including three which were imported. Such cases, where patients test positive but show no clinical symptoms such as a cough or fever, are excluded from China's tally of confirmed cases. In urging better testing, the National Health Commission said all large general hospitals need to set up laboratories that meet certain requirements and can conduct coronavirus testing independently. Since March, an average 54,000 tests have been conducted a day in Hubei province and that rose to 89,000 tests on April 17, Liu Dongru, a Hubei health commission official, told a news conference on Sunday. In Beijing, the number of institutions able to conduct nucleic acid testing has risen to 50 from 17 in early February, a municipal health commission official said on Sunday. In areas under great pressure, especially at land borders, local governments should help county-level medical institutions obtain nucleic acid testing capability, the commission said. Testing should be conducted by qualified medical institutions and independent medical laboratories, it said, adding that training for medical staff should be stepped up and testing operations standardised to reduce problems with the accuracy of testing. Claim: China's new coronavirus cases fall, eyes on northeastern province.
China on Sunday reported 16 new coronavirus cases but no deaths while authorities remained on guard against a major resurgence and monitored the spread of cases in Heilongjiang province.

Paragraph: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the "high cost" down, but it doesn't provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the "children" studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, "which is too small a sample size to prove anything." It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as "a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person's ability to interpret language." The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by "training at a learning development center." If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, "it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome." Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues
This story is the best of the three we reviewed about a study indicating that brain scans may help researchers understand brain structure and function in people who have dyslexia. It refrains from claiming that the work has near-term clinical implications for people who have trouble reading and writing. However, the bulk of the story is made up of personal stories about living with dyslexia, while key features of this research are buried deep in the story or left out entirely. What's more, the story describes the study participants as "children," thus leaving readers with the impression that researchers looked at beginning readers, when they actually were studying teenagers who presumably had been dealing with dyslexia for many years. In addition, the story tosses in a discussion of an unrelated study of dyslexia and spatial skills. Even people with advanced reading skills are likely to come away from this story befuddled about the scope, findings and implications of the research. Good reading skills are fundamental to educational, social and financial success. Dyslexia is a type of reading disability characterized by difficulties in word recognition, spelling and decoding. Most studies suggest early intervention is important, but little is known about why some children respond better than others. This research suggests that brain scans can provide insight to underlying mechanisms of dyslexia and perhaps help track and refine interventions that could be tailored to individuals. But for readers to understand the value of this study, stories must clearly describe the research and its implications.

Paragraph: Legislators signed off on the special voting provisions for the 2020 elections shortly before their deadline to pass bills in an unusual session that was interrupted for several weeks because of concerns about the virus that causes COVID-19. Voters currently can request absentee ballots only if they provide an excuse for why they can't vote in person. Illness is one option, but the law isn't explicit on whether the illness excuse covers healthy voters concerned about catching or spreading COVID-19. Under the bill sent to Republican Gov. Mike Parson, people considered at-risk of the coronavirus those age 65 and older, living in a long-term care facility or with certain existing health problems could vote absentee without needing to have their ballot notarized. Anyone else could cast a mail-in ballot but would need to get it notarized. The bill passed with bipartisan support but received mixed reviews from both parties. Republicans said it doesn't include enough restrictions to ensure election security, and Democrats said it has too many rules. "When you are not wanting to go to the polls because you are either ill or fearful of becoming ill, but then you have to go get a notary to be able to not go to the polls, it doesn't really fix the problem," House Democratic Minority Leader Crystal Quade said. Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft on Friday said he no longer supported the measure after lawmakers stripped a contested photo ID requirement out of it. Lawmakers returned to the Capitol to work on the state budget and other policies days before Parson lifted his statewide stay-at-home order in early May. Members of the public were allowed in the Capitol to watch debate but were encouraged to stay home, prompting concern from some lawmakers about lack of public involvement in crafting major policy changes. Both lawmakers and visitors were quizzed on their health and had their temperatures checked before they could enter the building. "The work that we did here today I think was important enough that legislators made the decision that they were going to go ahead and come to the building to do work," Republican House Speaker Elijah Haahr said. "We understand the risks involved." Few lawmakers wore masks in the final days of session, and legislators frequently sat close to one another to vote. Lawmakers also faced pressure to act on crime legislation following a bloody 2019 and a violent start to 2020. The deaths of two men on Tuesday night were Kansas City's 63rd and 64th homicides this year. St. Louis police reported 53 homicides as of Friday. A bill headed to Parson's desk would create the crime of vehicle hijacking, expand the number of crimes that are considered dangerous felonies, ban probation for some crimes, and broaden what's considered a criminal street gang, along with increased penalties for taking part in gang activities. "This is going to help get the most violent habitual offenders off of the streets," Republican Rep. Nick Schroer said. The bill sparked outrage from House lawmakers who said it could reverse a drop in the state's prison population following a bipartisan push for criminal justice reform in recent years. "It doesn't make us safer," Republican Rep. Shamed Dogan said of longer prison sentences. "It sounds good in campaign ads, but it does not actually increase public safety. This has been shown time and time and time and time again by research." Longstanding efforts to make Missouri the last state to adopt a prescription drug database to track addictive medications failed. Republican skeptics in the Senate expressed no interest in compromising on the House-backed bill Friday after a feud between the two GOP-led chambers. At issue was a House provision that could thwart efforts to build a wind-energy power line that was slipped onto another Senate bill without senators noticing. Senators on Thursday hurriedly revoked a bill they had just passed, a highly unusual move, when they caught the amendment. Few bills made it across the finish line during lawmaker's roughly five month session, about 50 compared to more than 90 last year. The Republican-led Legislature this week did succeed in sending a new redistricting plan to the ballot that will ask voters to undo key parts of another redistricting measure they passed less than two years ago. Supporters wanted to accomplish the move this year because new state House and Senate districts will be drawn in 2021. ___ Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report. Claim: Missouri lawmakers OK mail-in voting on final day of work.
Missouri lawmakers wrapped up their work Friday by passing bills allowing people to vote by mail because of the coronavirus and ramping up criminal penalties in response to an uptick in violent crime in the state's biggest cities.