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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: During the warm, waning summer days, fresh air workouts offer a wealth of new ways to boost the mood, channel the inner child and even burn extra calories. Chris Freytag, a personal trainer and health coach with the American Council on Exercise, loves the gym but lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a city notorious for brutal winters. "I'm a big believer in change of venue, of getting away from the same treadmill, the same spot. And there's something about fresh air and moving in space," said Freytag, who leads boot camp and circuit classes in parks and parking lots during the summer months. The changing terrain can also inspire the solitary exerciser to mix it up. "I'm all about hills: every time you see a hill or steps or stairs, lunge at it," said Freytag. "Step up and down on curbs and park benches." A child's playground offers core-strengthening possibilities from deep plank pushups, with feet placed on swings, to training with resistance bands slung around poles, to monkey bar pull-ups, she explained. Research suggest the outdoor boost can be mental as well as physical. In a 2014 study on indoor versus outdoor activity published in the journal Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being researchers analyzed national survey data from Finland. They found that nature provides an added value to the known benefits of physical activity and repeated exercise in nature is, in particular, connected to better emotional well-being. In his book "Beat the Gym," Connecticut-based running coach and personal trainer Tom Holland said running on a treadmill is slightly easier than running on the ground. "You don't have to deal with changing terrain, wind resistance," he said, adding that the zero incline on most treadmills is actually slightly downhill. New York City-based personal trainer JR Allen, said the first benefit of the outdoor workout is balance. "You have to be aware of your surroundings because you could step in a pothole," Allen said. "It is a less safe, more uncontrolled environment that is more of a strain on your body." Allen suggests the newcomer to outdoor exercise should start with a simple walk around the neighborhood. The seasoned exerciser should head to the park for sprints, power push ups, in which hands leave the ground, and walking planks, moving side to side and back to back on hands and feet. Daniel Taylor, author of the book "Conditioning to the Core," thinks outdoor training is great as long as people take some precautions. "People who utilize children's playground equipment ought to double check it. Make sure bars aren't slippery," he said. "One of the reasons we go to the gym is it's safe and dry." Claim: Parks, playgrounds offer fresh air alternatives to gym workouts.

Answer: From park bench pushups and monkey bar lifts to open air runs, fitness experts say the workout possibilities of playgrounds and parks are worth the consideration of even the most diehard gym users.

Question: Paragraph: "The effort to pass a sweeping immigration law has shifted to the Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives where it faces a much tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. Supporters say that any hope for success lies in compromise. House Republican leaders say the Senate bill falls short in significant ways, but Democrats argue that it already contains major concessions. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a long-time advocate for immigration reform from Chicago, highlighted how much his side was willing to give up to get the Senate bill through. ""They said to immigrants, 11 million of them, they said, tell you what we're going to do: For 10 years, you pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit,"" Gutierrez said on CNN's State of the Union. Gutierrez gave some examples: Immigrants with provisional legal status would not get help paying their health insurance premiums under Obamacare, and they would get no credit for any Social Security taxes they paid during the time they worked illegally. In this fact-check, we explore the terms of the deal in the Senate bill. Are they as stark as Gutierrez presents, or is the picture more complicated? Gutierrez's staff clarified that he was using shorthand to refer to means-tested federal benefits.That would include some of the country's largest programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or welfare), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps). What the Senate bill says The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act allows immigrants without documents to get permission to live and work in the country legally. The Social Security Administration expects that nearly three-fourths of the estimated 11.5 million people here will qualify for what is called Registered Provisional Immigrant, status, or RPI. A smaller number of agricultural workers would qualify for a separate program called the blue card. Neither program grants citizenship or permanent legal status, but they provide a pathway to both. Applicants would need to pay a fine, a fee, and pass a criminal background check to qualify for provisional status. The bill has a specific provision that goes to Gutierrez's claim. For both RPI and blue card holders, it says, ""An alien who has been granted blue card (or RPI) status is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit"" and to be clear about what those benefits are, the bill refers to a law passed about 15 years ago. In 1996, Congress defined the public benefits that undocumented immigrants couldn't get. That law listed ""Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit."" Numerous agencies have interpreted this to mean Medicaid and Medicare, SNAP, energy assistance and so forth. The Senate bill also expressly blocks immigrants with temporary status from receiving any health insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. However, individuals can use their own money to buy their insurance through the clearinghouses called exchanges. ""Rep. Gutierrez is broadly correct, but not 100 percent,"" said Leighton Ku, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University who analyzed immigrant use of public benefits in a paper for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. ""If they are poor enough and meet other eligibility criteria, for example, if they are a child or a low-income parent, RPIs may be eligible for emergency Medicaid, as are unauthorized immigrants."" The 1996 law built in some exceptions for immigrants without legal documents. In addition to Medicaid paying for emergency medical treatment, young children are eligible for reduced school lunch programs and standard immunizations. The Women, Infant and Children program, WIC, can subsidize grocery bills for young families. So for children, women who are pregnant or have recently delivered, and medical emergencies, current law allows benefits for the undocumented and the Senate bill does not change that. Lastly, on the tax side, the Senate bill says ""an alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant status ... unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability."" In other words, these provisional residents must pay Uncle Sam. Regarding the 10 years Gutierrez mentioned, some immigrants under provisional status might be eligible for permanent resident status, a green card, sooner. If that happens, then they would gain access to public benefits in less than 10 years. However, both Social Security and Medicare require that a person or their spouse pay into the system for 10 years before they can claim any benefits. This applies to everyone, native born or not. And both programs are available only to citizens or permanent residents. People with provisional status would have Social Security and Medicare taxes deducted from their paychecks but would be ineligible to use those programs for 10 years. A dispute over benefits The U.S. Code defines public benefits, but there are some who say the list is incomplete. Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors limited immigration, said the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit provide aid to lower income workers through the tax code. A working family that owes no taxes and meets other criteria can apply and receive thousands of dollars from the government. ""Gutierrez is mistaken,"" Camarota said. ""These large programs are explicitly available to those in RPI status. Low income immigrants typically work and have children, so their use rates of these two programs are very high, as it will be for RPI folks."" Immigration reform advocates agree that provisional residents would gain from the tax credits. But Tanya Broder, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, counters that blocking their use of these credits would be a first for the tax code. ""Individuals granted RPI status are required to pay the same taxes and are subject to the same deductions from their income as all other taxpayers,"" Broder said. ""Denying them the ability to claim the EITC would create an unprecedented two-tiered tax system for lawfully present workers."" Regarding the accuracy of Gutierrez's statement, he was using the federal definition of benefits, and while lawmakers could decide otherwise, we take current law as our guide. For many years, Camarota and others have noted that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are deemed citizens and are eligible for benefits. Their family members could indirectly benefit. The Senate bill makes no change in that. Our ruling Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time." Claim: "Luis Gutierrez Says under the Senate immigration bill, newly legalized immigrants will ""pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit"" for 10 years."

Answer: Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time.

Question: Paragraph: The story notes howthe PulsePoint Foundation'sappis available for free downloadforboth iOS and Android. We think that it would have been useful to put the URLs in the story, though, as well as note that CPR training is available for free in most locations. The story puts the benefits of the PulsePoint app into perspective: "It's not clear how many lives have been saved," it states, further hedging:"Patient confidentiality laws often prevent hospitals from disclosing a patient's outcome." This is enough to merit a Satisfactory ratingbut with several caveats: Harms and downsides weren't discussed. But with this app being used so widely and in so many cities, isn't data available? One simple harm is the app simply failing to work. Anotherharm could be untrainedorinexperienced people trying to help and causing harm from not knowing what they're doing. Do people who sign up to use the app have to prove any sort of competency? Also, could bystanders who respond become hurt? For example, are911 operators first establishing if the situation is safe for others to intervene before issuing an alert? As mentioned above, no one is sure how well it works to save lives, and the story makes this clear. But it should have gone a step further and clarified: Has any research at all been done? On the same note: Why do more cities keep adopting it? What evidence is being used to convince them to sign up? No disease mongering here. The reader is provided with quotes from Mr. DeMont and his wife, the developer of the app and two of the responders as well as information from unnamed Seattle officials. However, we wanted tohear from an outside emergency medicine expert to weigh in and respond tothe story's information/claims. We don't think that the direct alternative (no access to PulsePoint linkage to a locale's 911 system) needed to be discussed. It is clear that the app is now available and for free. It's clear that this is a feature story about a readily available app and how more people are finding out about it and using it, so we'll rate this N/A. However, it would have been useful to mention if there are any other apps that work in this way, or not. There is no evidence that the story relies on anewsrelease. Claim: APP HELPS SAVE SEATTLE CARDIAC PATIENT

Answer:
This is a storyabout the use of an app called PulsePoint in the care of a Seattle victim of sudden cardiac arrest. In the process of telling a patient story that ended well, the reader is provided with information on the app's development, its current use across the country and how the reader can become involved in what can best be described as the crowdsourcing of out-of-hospital care for victims of cardiac arrest. While certainly an intriguing use of technology that merits news discussion, the story left us with questions: What research was conducted to show this app is beneficial? And how solid was that research? What are the potential harms or downsides of using an app in this way? How typical was the patient's story? An American Heart Association report released in 2015 noted that there are approximately 326,000 cases of out-of hospital-cardiac arrests in the United States. The survival rate with good neurologic function is approximately 8%. Importantly, just about one-third of the victims survive when cardiacarrest is witnessed. An app that advises people nearby of an event, especially those who are trained in CPR, is likely to save additional livesbut how do we know for sure? And are the potential harmsworth it? The story should have explained how proof is being collected, if at all.