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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Numerous bills on expanding access to health care, and growing training and educational opportunities for residents were included among the 134 new measures the Legislative Council accepted last week. The Portland Press Herald reports only the titles of the bill have been submitted for introduction in the lawmaking session that starts in January. The measures also appear to be a response to the recent leaked propane explosion in a building in Farmington. The state has no current regulation requiring natural gas or propane leak detectors or warning devices. Lawmakers will also take up about 500 other measures either held by Gov. Janet Mills or left over from this year's session. Claim: Health care, education to lead Maine's legislative debates.
Example Output: Several bills focused on health care and education are expected to lead legislative debates at the Maine Statehouse in 2020.

Example Input: Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonablyearly in the story, and with specificity. This was goodto see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist"are much better." But we don't knowwhat that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explainsthat combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician "better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer." (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to thestandard assessment tools? A 2016 study describedas publication "of the first clinical utility data" demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We're told thatexperts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that's sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidencefor these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details areusefulbecause the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debitsoruncertainties driven by lack of clinical datacontributing to these decisions? There isn't sufficient information on the evidence behindthese tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven't endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the storyone of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Networkappear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategiesthe CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasoundare mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren't included on why standard methods aren't sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. Adirect comparison ofsurvival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren't available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The storymentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a "proprietary" formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should havetalked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used
Example Output: This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood testsROMA and OVA1that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery toinvestigateabnormal growthsshould be performed by a gynecologic oncologist ("gyn-onc") trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, "largely because they haven't been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines." The story hit on a lot of important notesit told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We're told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we're not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battleit is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

Example Input: Paragraph: The traffic-clogged city has more than 10 million residents, but about three times that number live in surrounding towns, swelling emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations. In the current dry season, Jakarta has consistently ranked among the world's most polluted cities, based on data from Air Visual, a Swiss-based group that monitors air quality. In 2016, the municipal government ordered curbs on private cars governed by whether their license-plate numbers were odd or even, to reduce traffic jams on main thoroughfares. That effort was widened last year, ahead of the Asian Games. On Wednesday, it said this policy would be extended again to cover smaller roads. This move comes after an instruction last week by Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan to levy congestion charges for cars from 2020, set an age limit of 10 years on vehicles on the road by 2025, tighten emission tests and rein in industrial discharges. However, experts said the governor needed to do more. "All the steps taken will in themselves improve the air quality, but the overall impact will not be big because they are not addressing the main problem," said Almo Pradana, senior manager for energy and climate at the World Resources Institute Indonesia. Pradana added that Jakarta did not have enough monitoring devices to pinpoint the cause of the pollution spikes. "If we look at air quality issues, what you have to do is you have to find what makes the air quality worsen, how much in percentages comes from transportation, and when, and how much comes from coal power plants and factories," he said. A strategic plan to cut pollution based on an inventory of emissions would be a better solution, he said, adding that this week's massive power outage had made the city's air cleaner. But ending the city's love affair with cars appears likely to be difficult. Jakarta residents took to social media on Wednesday to figure out how to get around the restrictions, including strategies such as changing car plates and buying more cars. "It's a burden for people, not effective!" one of them, Tito Pangesti, said on Twitter. "Make better regulations, like banning old minibus with black exhaust smoke on the street ... if you want to reduce pollution, odd-even is not a solution." Environmental groups have sued President Joko Widodo and several government officials over Jakarta's worsening air quality, trying to force the government to investigate the source of emissions. Claim: Indonesia's capital curbs private cars in bid to cut choking pollution.
Example Output:
Indonesia's capital announced new curbs on private cars on Wednesday as it moves to rein in Jakarta's choking air pollution, but experts warned the measures were unlikely to stamp out the problem.