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: The U.S. Forest Service's draft risk assessment suggests that even in a best-case scenario with social distancing followed and plenty of tests and protective equipment available nearly two dozen firefighters could be infected with COVID-19 at a camp with hundreds of people who come in to combat a fire that burns for months. The worst-case scenario? More than 1,000 infections. "The Forest Service is diligently working with partners to assess the risk that COVID-19 presents for the 2020 fire season," the agency said in a statement Wednesday. "It is important to understand that the figures in this report are not predictions, but rather, model possible scenarios." The Forest Service said the document was outdated and being redone, and the newest version wasn't yet ready to share. The AP obtained the draft from an official who has access to it and didn't want to be named. One of the authors of the risk assessment said Tuesday that in the new version, the infection rates remain the same. But while the draft originally said the death rate among infected firefighters could reach as high as 6%, that is being revised sharply downward, to less than 2%, to reflect newer data, said Jude Bayham, an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University. He said the initial death rate was based on data from early in the pandemic, when testing was far more limited. Based on new data, firefighters who are largely healthy and young will likely fare far better if they contract COVID-19 than the general population, he said. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially people who are older or have health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia and death. Federal guidelines released last week reimagine how to combat wildfires to reduce the risk of firefighters getting the virus. The guidelines urge fire managers to use small crews that can have the close contact that firefighting and travel often require, while staying away from other groups. The guidelines recommend avoiding the traditional large camps and relying on military-issue ready-to-eat or bagged meals instead of catered buffet-style meals at campsites. Some fire managers also are told to take temperatures with their own touchless thermometers if possible. The guidelines say everyone should wear masks and other protective equipment when around those outside their immediate crew. Good cleaning and sanitation is recommended, as is isolating firefighters and potentially entire crews if COVID-19 is detected. A review of incident reports from wildfires so far this year show the guidelines are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to follow and could actually increase some risks to firefighters. "We have developed pinch-points that cause operational lapses in guidance that may very well get confused with policy and doctrine. This situation could result in injury or even unwanted death of our multiagency employees," Greg Juvan, a fire management officer with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, wrote in a report from a small wildfire last month. Social distancing was difficult, and firefighters found it unrealistic to meet sanitation standards for truck radios, hand tools and other gear used in the initial attack on the Idaho wildfire, Juvan said. Social distancing guidelines call for more vehicles to transport crews, but that led to congestion on the narrow roads leading to the fire. The guidelines could raise one of the greatest risks to wildland firefighters traffic wrecks, Juvan said. Even something as basic as sanitizing vehicles proved problematic, with cleaning supplies difficult to find, the report said. In New Mexico, several agencies responded to a small wildfire last month, with some not practicing social distancing and other virus policies appearing to vary greatly, George Allalunis, a Carson National Forest engine captain, wrote in a report. For the Forest Service's draft risk assessment, researchers created scenarios using three actual fires from 2017 and applied disease modeling. They found testing every firefighter before they started work reduced the coronavirus risk most significantly for short, high-intensity wildfires, said Bayham, the professor. But for longer, drawn-out firefights, initial testing was less important than keeping firefighters spread out in small campsites. The models showed that even with strict pre-work testing and social distancing, about 21 COVID-19 infections could be expected in a large camp like that used for a 2017 fire in Montana. In the worst-case scenario, more than 1,000 firefighters would be infected. The problem could compound as fire crews are sent to new locations over the monthslong fire season, which has largely begun. The risk assessment will be updated throughout the season, the Forest Service said. The American West could see higher-than-normal levels of wildfire this year because of drought. Claim: US report indicates broad risk of COVID-19 at wildfire camps.
[A]: Outbreaks of the coronavirus could sweep through large camps where crews typically stay as they fight wildfires across the U.S., according to a federal document obtained by The Associated Press, and the problem is likely to get worse the longer the fire season lasts.

[Q]: Paragraph: "It is less surprising that neither story discussed costs, given that so few stories do. But sample costs could have been obtained by calling any of the numerous medical marijuana outlets in states where it is legal. Both stories did a decent job of quantifying the benefits.This story provided more details, though, including the differences in patient experiences between the three different concentrations of marijuana. It also repeated this important bit of information:""There was also no difference in the quality of life or mood scores that participants reported when they were on any of the four treatments."" The story also does a great job of pointing out that the treatment duration of five days in each dosage phase is too short to judge utility for chronic pain, which isa long-term affliction. Neither story actually quantified the harms, but they both noted there were side effects. This story did a better job, though, by noting that the only dose that seemed to work also seemed to produce the most side effects and by raising the issue of long-term safety concerns. It also was the only story to answer the question that readers surely would have when reading about an illegal narcotic being used as medicine. Did these patients feel high as a result? This story says that most did not. Because of the additional information and context, the rating here is satisfactory. This story, unlike the competing WebMD piece, establishes in the first sentence even in the first three words that this was ""a small study."" It then discusses the limitations of the study at several points. The second sentence says, ""The pain reduction was ""modest"" less than 1 point on an 11-point scale for the strongest marijuana and patients reported no overall difference in their quality of life based on what they smoked."" The writer elegantly and succinctly described the study design a complex randomized cross-over trial with double blinding and delved into an important feature of the study, that the subjects in retrospect may have been able to detect during which phase of their experience they inhaled placebo versus the most potent drug. This story avoids disease mongering, and, in fact, goes beyond that to note how few people actually suffer from the type of chronic pain that was the subject of the study:""About 1 to 2 percent of adults in the U.S."" The story quotes two outside experts, one of whom is completely independent from the study and the journal, Dr Andrea Hohmann. Beyond that, we would bet that the reporter spent more time interviewing Dr. Mark Ware, the lead researcher, or at least asked tougher questions. Because Ware is more measured in this story than in the WebMD story. He even goes so far as to say, ""What about long-term safety issues?"" he asked. ""These need to be considered before the drug becomes prescribable."" As with the WebMD story, it would have been nice to see who funded the research. Unlike the WebMD story, this one did not point out the conflicts of interest of Dr. Henry McQuay. This story talks about a range of treatment options and even has the study's lead author suggesting, that ""these patients should also be getting behavioral and physical therapy."" Strangely, neither story we reviewed pointed out that marijuana is illegal in most states and in Canada, where the study took place. The story could have, at a minimum, mentioned which states have medical marijuana laws or talked about whether any other countries currently allow cannabis to be sold in pill form the way it was used in this study. The story alludes to the fact that this study ""supports a limited number of trials that have suggested marijuana may be helpful for people suffering from chronic pain,"" indicating that the treatmentis not very novel at all. It would have been nice to see more context around that. The WebMD story provides a little more information in this regard. If the news release is to be believed, ""This is the first trial to be conducted where patients have been allowed to smoke cannabis at home and to monitor their responses, daily"". That could have been made clear. The story goes well beyond the release. Here's the release." Claim: Pot may provide some chronic pain relief: study
[A]: The story did a great job evaluating the evidence, providing outside voices, discussing alternatives to marijuana smoking, and presenting both the benefits and the potential harms. It could have done a better job discussing possible costs, availability and conflicts of interest. From the headline to the last sentence, this report avoided overstatement of the applicability of the potential benefit and used clear incisive language that left the reader with a good understanding of the study and its implications. This topic lends itself to jokey, pun-filled writing, but this story played it straight. Chronic pain can ruin lives, and a breakthrough with an alternative approach would be important news. As this story makes clear, until some larger studies with fewer limitations are undertaken, we are far from the point where marijuana can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain.

[Q]: Paragraph: Social networks like Facebook and Twitter are often where the public expresses concern and even outrage over perceived miscarriages of justice. In recent years, internet users have been especially prolific in promoting awareness of a perceived tendency among some judges and prosecutors to seek and accept insufficient punishments for sexual crimes particularly against women and children. One such case emerged in 2018 and 2019 and involved the prosecution of Justin Schneider of Anchorage, Alaska who, according to one internetmeme, served no jail time despite having seriously assaulted a woman he picked up outside a gas station in August 2017. On October 2018, Facebook user Ed Stonick posted a widely shared meme that contained a photograph of Schneider along with the following text, which some readers might find disturbing: GENOCIDE JUSTIN SCHNEIDER This is Justin Schneider, he is 34 years old and lives in Anchorage, Alaska. He is a white male who picked up a hitch-hiking indigenous female. He strangled her unconscious, masturbated over her body, and left her to die. This week he pled guilty in an Anchorage District Court. Because his victim survived he was given a plea deal. The kidnapping and sexual assault charges were dropped. He was given no time in jail and only received one year of probation. This is the face of American justice. This is the face of white privilege. This is the face of genocide. This fact check won't examine the broader cultural issues raised by the meme and in other coverage of the Schneider case, namely the extent to which the American criminal justice system is relatively indifferent to crimes experienced by indigenous women, such as the woman at the center of this case. Rather, our article will evaluate the factual claims made in the meme. Much of the content of the meme is quite accurate, though it contains some errors. On 8 August 2017, Schneider pulled up in his vehicle and approached a woman who was standing outside a gas station in Anchorage. She entered his van and some time later, he attacked her, strangled her, masturbated over her and ejaculated on her, acts that Schneider later admitted in a subsequent civil case brought against him by the woman. Using a license plate number provided by the woman, police tracked down Schneider and arrested him on suspicion of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree harassment and second-degree assault. Schneider initially pleaded not guilty to all three charges. The woman claimed that Schneider had invited her into his vehicle under false pretenses, calling himself "Dan" and claiming to be an acquaintance of hers, allegations Schneider continues to deny. She also claimed that he had strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. Schneider has admitted strangling her, but denies doing so to the point of her losing consciousness. Despite facing three criminal charges, Schneider and his attorneys were able to persuade the office of Anchorage District Attorney Rick Allen to drop the charges of kidnapping and harassment, in exchange for Schneider pleading guilty to second-degree assault. On 19 September 2018, Alaska Superior Court Judge Michael Corey sentenced Schneider to two years in prison, with one year suspended, and three years of probation,as a result of the plea agreement with prosecutors. However, because Alaska law allows for time spent under house arrest to effectively be regarded as "time served," Schneider was not required to serve the 12 months remaining on his prison sentence. After the sentencing, the state of Alaska's Department of Law provided the following explanation for the plea agreement and sentence: Although Mr. Schneider received one year of jail time, Alaska law allows an offender to receive credit for any time spent on an ankle monitor or under house arrest against any jail sentence imposed. The Department of Law heard from a number of concerned citizens that the sentence imposed was too lenient. Criminal Division Director John Skidmore independently reviewed the case and concluded the sentence was consistent with, and reasonable, under current sentencing laws in Alaska. Mr. Schneider plead guilty to one count of assault in the second degree, a class B felony in Alaska, in exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining charges notably, first-degree kidnapping and first-degree harassment. The State dismissed the most serious charge based on the conclusion that the State would be unable to prove the kidnapping at trial. Kidnapping requires that the victim be "restrained" or moved against his or her will. Additional investigation determined that the victim willingly got into Mr. Schneider's vehicle and willingly drove with him to the location of the assault. Under these circumstances, the criminal charge of kidnapping (as defined under Alaska law) could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Schneider was convicted of the remaining most serious crime: second-degree assault. Based on Mr. Schneider's lack of criminal history, the sentencing range for the offense was zero to two years in jail. "Though it is understandable that some feel his sentence was not sufficiently harsh," Director Skidmore explained, "All prosecutors are ethically required to follow the law, no matter how disturbing the facts may be." While the facts of this case were particularly disturbing, Mr. Schneider's offensive physical contact with bodily fluid such as semen is not categorized as a sex crime under Alaska law. Despite this limitation, the prosecutor felt Mr. Schneider needed sex offender treatment. The only way to achieve that result was to have Mr. Schneider agree to the probation conditions. Thus, the prosecutor required Mr. Schneider to undergo sex offender treatment and comply with other monitoring conditions as a condition of the plea agreement. In November 2018, Alaskans voted to recallCorey from the bench, after a campaign that criticized his sentencing of Schneider. Speaking in March 2019, Corey said he and the prosecutors in the case were constrained by sentencing guidelines and Alaska state law, and described the outcome of the case as "a horrible result." Also in November 2018, the woman filed alawsuit against Schneider, seeking damages, compensation and legal fees and accusing him of assault and battery, negligence and inflicting emotional distress. In his response to the civil complaint, Schneider requested the case be dismissed but admitted to "tackling, strangling and ejaculating on" the woman, and accepted that he had "intentionally or recklessly caused physical injury or emotional distress." He denied having tricked the woman into entering his vehicle, and denied that she lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her. As of March 2019, the woman's civil case against Schneider was still before the Alaska Superior Court. The meme was accurate in stating that Schneider had assaulted, strangled and masturbated over the woman the core allegations against Schneider, all of which he has admitted. However, Schneider disputes the specific claim that the woman lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her, so we cannot definitively rule on the veracity of that particular allegation. While the meme claimed that Schneider was given one year's probation, in fact Judge Corey gave him three years' probation. That's a significant discrepancy, even if it does not change the view, held by many observers, that Schneider's punishment was woefully inadequate. Finally, Schneider did serve some jail time in August 2017, after his arrest and before his release on bail, but the principal claim in relation to his case is that his punishment did not include jail time. So the meme's claim that "he was given no time in jail" is mostly accurate, since Corey did sentence Schneider to two years in prison, but he suspended one year and credited the remainder of the prison sentence with the time Schneider spent under house arrest while on bail. Thus, the actual effect of Schneider's sentencing was that he did not have to go to jail as part of his punishment. Claim: "Justin Schneider was ""given no jail time,"" despite having strangled and assaulted a hitchhiker in Anchorage, Alaska, in 2017."
[A]:
What's true: Schneider admitted to assaulting and strangling the woman, but his sentence was structured so that he didn't have to go to jail. What's false: The judge in the case did give Schneider a two-year prison sentence, but one year of that was suspended, and he was credited with time served for spending a year under house arrest while on bail.