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.

[Q]: Paragraph: Officials in Cumberland County say the Department of Health was told Saturday that a person affiliated with the university was hospitalized with a "possible diagnosis of a bacterial meningitis infection." They did not say if the ill individual is a student. Officials say they are coordinating with the school and the state to provide antibiotics to anyone who had direct close contact with the individual. The university sent a campus-wide notification Saturday. Meningitis is an infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. The bacteria that cause the infection can spread through kissing, coughing and sharing beverages. Signs and symptoms of infection include high fever, headache, stiff neck and a rash. Claim: Officials investigate possible meningitis case at NC college.
[A]: Health officials in North Carolina are investigating a possible case of bacterial meningitis at Methodist University.

[Q]: Paragraph: On 21 January 2019, Slate published a article headlined "The Trump Administration Quietly Changed the Definition of Domestic Violence and We Have No Idea What For." That story highlighted significant changes to the definition of domestic violence appearing on website of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women office. An archived version of that website from April 2018 previously defined domestic violence as: A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. By contrast, the current version of that same website encompasses only acts of physical violence under the definition of domestic violence: The term "domestic violence" includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person's acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. We reached out to the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) for an explanation on what motivated the change in the definition and whether that change was spurred by an actual change in law or policy. We received a response from Allison Randall, Chief of Staff for the OVW, that did not adequately answer either question. Her response is reproduced in full below: The Department is strongly committed to enforcing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with the law enacted by Congress. Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission. By following the statute, the Department ensures the funds made available by Congress are employed in the most effective manner possible to reduce violence and to assist crime victims. In fiscal year 2018, OVW awarded a record $467 million under VAWA. President Trump's request for fiscal year 2019 OVW funding was the largest ever requested. OVW discretionary grantees serve an average of 125,000 victims every six months and formula subgrantees serve over 400,000 victims each year. VAWA funding supports victim advocates who answer over a million hotline calls and provides over 2 million housing and shelter bed-nights for victims and their children annually. Every year, VAWA-funded professionals assist victims in securing more than 200,000 protection orders. The narrower definition employed in the current version of the OVW website stems from the definition provided in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as it relates to disbursing funds for VAWA grant programs. While it is true this narrow definition has not changed as it relates to the VAWA, it is unclear why the DOJ found it necessary to remove information about non-physical intimate partner violence. Writing in Slate, Natalie Nanasi, a Professor of Law and the Director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University, argued that: A domestic violence relationship rarely begins with physical violence, much less violence that rises to the level of a crime. If you were punched on a first date, odds are there wouldn't be a second. Intimate partner abuse is insidious: Emotional and psychological abuse escalates to physical violence as an abuser's need and/or ability to exert power and control increases. In the United States today, more than half of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. If we do not acknowledge the "small" things yelling or screaming, name-calling, and controlling or monitoring communication and social media victims may not realize they are in danger until it is too late. In our response to the statement from OVW, we suggested that they had not provided any explanation for the change to their website and requested further clarification; if we receive such clarification, we will update our story. Claim: The DOJ changed the definition of domestic violence on their website without explanation.
[A]: The Violence Against Women Act, which was extended by President Obama in 2013, expired at midnight on 22 December 2018 as a result of the 2018-19 federal government shutdown over funding for President Trump's proposed border wall.

[Q]: Paragraph: "A comment about the overall cost of endoscopic sinus surgery, as well as insurance coverage and likely out-of-pocket expenses for patients, would have been appropriate in this story. In addition, the costs associated with the equipment and upkeep are also important considerations. However, the story didn't mention costs. This story focuses almost exclusively on the experience of one patient, a practice we generally think should be avoided. In this case, however, the patient in question was a health columnistwith the Boston Globe who brings a well-informed and appropriately skeptical perspective to the story. Whereas many storiesseek out patients who embody the best possible outcome for a new technology or procedure, thispatient describes an incremental benefit that was ""disappointing"" in size butin the end, still worth the trouble. Instead of getting 5 or more sinus infections per year, she now gets 3 or 4 infections that are not as badasbefore. In addition, the story emphasizes that surgery is ""rarely a cure"" and should be viewedas a ""last resort"" for most patients with sinus problems. We wishmorestorieswere this measured in their assessment of medicalbenefits. The story refers off-handedly to the possibility of""poking through to the brain or into the orbit of an eye,"" but it fails to explain that these events are very rare but real risks of the surgery. While extremely unlikely, it's possible for surgeons to accidentallydamagethe optic nerve, resulting in blindness, or to puncture the base of the skull, resulting in cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Other less serious,but more common complications are also possible. The story didn't mentionany of them. While we appreciated this story'scarefully calibrated tone and conspicuous lack of hype, we felt its discussion of the evidence was inadequate. The story quotes a surgeonwho says thatendoscopic surgery improves quality of life for patients""probably in over 90 percent of the cases."" But we're not given enough information to determine how this estimate was formulated orif it is representative oftypical patient outcomes. The surgeon might be talking about his own personal experience treating patients, which could be much better than average if he's an experienced surgeon working at a top-tier institution. Adding to our concerns, there is at least some published evidencesuggesting that endoscopic sinus surgeryis lesseffective than thisstory indicates. For example,asystematic review of randomized controlled trials couldn't find evidence that the procedure was more effective than medical therapy. Granted, this review included only 3 studies and could have involvedslightly different procedures than the one discussed in this story. But if there is more persuasive evidence to substantiate theprocedure's benefits,the story should havereferred to it directly instead ofpassing alongthe surgeon's second-hand estimates. There was no disease-mongering in this story. The story makes it clear that the surgery being described is a last-ditch approach for people with intractable problems. The story reliesheavily on the perspective of Judy Foreman, the health columnist and patient, and her surgeon,Ralph Metson, neither of whom have any conflicts of interest that we could identify. While it would have been nice to hear from an expert who wasn't involved in this particular case,the story does enough to satisfy the criterion. The story's sidebargives detailed descriptions of alternatives to surgery, including nasal irrigation and corticosteroid nasal sprays. The story states that about300,000 people a yearundergo sinus surgery, making it one of the most commonly performedprocedures in the U.S. However, it does not provide statistics on the number or percentage of those procedures that are performed endoscopically and the type of hospital setting in which they are done. Enodoscopic surgery with CT guidance as described in the story may be out of the reach of smaller community based practitioners. We'll call this satisfactory, but some additional detailwould have been appropriate. The story didn't attempt to oversell the novelty of this procedure. It is clear that this story didn't rely on a news release." Claim: Surgery For Sinus Misery: Better, But Still No Cure
[A]:
While we typically wouldn't advise reporters to focus exclusively on a single patient's experience, as this story aboutendoscopic surgery for treating sinus infectionsdid, the resulthere is a winner thanks tothe patient'sfamiliarity with the subject and unusually dispassionate perspective. She is the relatively rarepatient ina healthstory who acknowledges being disappointed with the outcome of a new treatment. Notable strengths of the story include its measured tone, its extensive discussion of nonsurgical alternatives,and its emphasis on theincremental benefits experienced by most patients (e.g. surgery is "rarely a cure"). The story could have provided a bit more information about the different types of sinus problems people suffer from (e.g. sinusitis with and without polyps, etc)and what kinds of studiessupportendoscopicsurgery for chronic sinus infections. It also failed to provide enough detail regarding the costs and harms of the treatment. Chronic sinusitis is a common problem that has a significant impact on quality of life. Chronic sinus infections can be painful, result in significant medical expenditures,and lead tolost productivity due to work absences. Although endoscopic sinus surgery has some advantages over older, more invasive techniques that caused scarring and requiredlonger recovery periods, it is important for patients to have realistic expectations about the benefits of surgery and whether they are worth the risks. As this story makes clear, the benefits of surgery remain marginal enough that they are worthwhile onlyfor the most severe cases.