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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: U.S. Marines of Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines are silhouetted against the sunset during a joint patrol with Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers along Helmand river near the Camp Gorgak in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, July 3, 2011. REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, analyzed medical records of 307,520 children of active-duty Army personnel, aged 5 to 17 years old. It found almost 17 percent of them exhibited mental health problems. "Children of parents who spent more time deployed between 2003 and 2006 fared worse than children whose parents were deployed for a shorter duration," the study's researchers wrote. The lead researcher was Alyssa Mansfield, who was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the time the study was conducted. The U.S. Army reported some 562,000 members in active duty and more than 570,000 children of such members in 2010. Just under two-thirds of all active-duty servicemen and women were married and 15 percent were raising children as single parents. The children whose parents deployed at least once, for an average of 11 months, as part of the U.S. Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan were especially likely to suffer from adjustment, behavioral, depressive or stress disorders than those whose parents never went to war, the study found. Boys were more likely to have mental health problems than girls, according to the report, which reviewed records for patients cared for at military medical facilities and at civilian facilities using military medical insurance. "We used to think about deployment as a single experience: I go, I'm away, it's difficult and then I come back. Well, it's a way of life in the military that deployments continue to occur and families have to manage the consequences," said Dr. Stephen Cozza, psychiatry professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Cozza has studied the issue and wrote an editorial accompanying the report. "These are consequences that aren't necessarily short-term," he said. The challenges don't necessarily end with the final return home, he said, as soldiers may bring back their own mental health issues which affect relationships with their children. Claim: Mental problems of soldiers' kids tied to wars.

Ex Output:
The longer U.S. soldiers were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, the more likely their children would be diagnosed with mental health problems, according to a study published Monday.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Kirsty Hartley was sentenced Thursday. The sentence includes 18 months of house arrest. U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister says Hartley's husband, Dalton Hartley, was given the same sentence because he received the drugs from her. Kirsty Hartley pleaded guilty to distributing a prescription painkiller outside the usual course of professional practice. Dalton Hartley pleaded guilty acquiring controlled substances through fraud. Kirsty Hartley worked at a CVS pharmacy. She admitted she gave more than 21,000 tablets of hydrocodone with acetaminophen to her husband. He consumed or traded them for marijuana. As part of her plea, Kirsty Hartley surrendered her pharmacist's license. Claim: Salina pharmacist, husband sentenced in opioid diversion.

Ex Output:
A 29-year-old Salina pharmacist has been sentenced to three years of probation for diverting prescription drugs containing opioids.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "There are no financial costs associated with fasting one day per month. The article generally presents data well: While at the top it uses the phrase ""40 percent less likely to be diagnosed with heart disease,"" later in the text it explains that 67 percent of the non-fasters were diagnosed, compard to 59 percent of fasters. Providing both measures is useful. The article also lays out the study's methodology in considerable detail. The article cites the two important safety issues regarding fasting: That it can be dangerous for diabetics, and that it can depress metabolism and possibly make weight gain more likely. It should also have said that anyone who wants to fast should consult their doctor first. While the article reports that the study was presented at an American Heart Association meeting, it did not explain that this means the data has not been peer-reviewed or published and as such carries less credibility until (or if) it is published in such a journal. The article also failed to point out an observational study of self-reported behavior is a less powerful type of evidence than a prospective clinical trial. The risk in this study of ""Healthy user bias"" the fact that people who choose to fast may have healthy characteristics that others do not should have been emphasized. The article also permits the researchers to overinterpret some data. It quotes the researchers as saying the results apply to non-Mormons too. But only 8 percent of the survey group of 515 or 41 people were not Mormons. Conclusions of disease prevalence based on such a small sample size are premature. The article does not exaggerate the consequences or prevalence of heart disease. This article was based on a presentation at a medical meeting. It included interviews from two sources: The study's author, and an independent expert on the subject of diet and heart disease. The article states that quitting smoking also reduces heart disease risk. But it fails to indicate that a more common approach to reducing heart risk is controlling what and how much you eat rather than when. It would have been useful to know how much benefit this group of fasters saw compared to a similar group that used more common dietary measures to reduce heart risk. The article also fails to mention other common and effective ways to reduce heart risk, such as controlling high blood pressure and lipids, taking aspirin, etc. The activity studied, refraining from food and drink one day per month, is available to anyone. The article correctly implies that little research has been done on the cardiac benefits of once-a-month daily fasting. There is no evidence the article is based on a press release." Claim: Study: Monthly fasting may help heart

Ex Output:
This report on findings about heart disease in a mostly Mormon population of once-a-month fasters is solidly done. It presents data fairly and quotes one independent source. It also includes the essential caveats that the study is "far from proof" that fasting cuts heart disease risk, that monthly fasting may be a marker for personal self-discipline generally, and that fasting doesn't necessarily lead to weight loss. The article's major shortcoming is that it is based on a fairly low quality of data source subject to biasan unpublished presentation of information gathered from self-reports of healthy people about lifestyle behaviors linked to their religious beliefs. The question here is not with the reporter's execution of the story, but whether it should have been published at all. Despite its prominent acknowledgment of caveats, the story's length and very existence invite the inference that fasting is an effective method to reduce heart disease risk. The researchers themselves admit their study can in no way responsibly answer that questionthat their study at best raises questions that may justify further study. When making assignments, editors would be wise to ask the questions: Will this report invite an inference about a recommended change in personal health behavior? If so, does the data justify this inference? In this case, the answer to the former is yes. The answer to the latter is no. Viewed from this perspective, an argument can be made that the story should not have been published. (An abstract of the presentation appears as a meeting supplement to the journal Circulation.)