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 Q]: Paragraph: An image graphic purportedly featuring an excerpt from a speech President John F. Kennedy was scheduled to deliver on the day that he was assassinated was recirculated on social media in November 2018: These lines were part of a speech JFK was slated to make to the Texas Democratic State Committee in the Municipal Auditorium in Austin, Texas, on the evening of 22 November 1963. President Kennedy never had the opportunity to deliver that speech, however, as he was assassinated earlier that day while his motorcade drove through Dealey Plaza in Dallas. A transcript of this undelivered speech is available via the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. The excerpt included in this meme comes from the penultimate paragraph of that text: Finally, I said in Lubbock in 1960, as I said in every other speech in this State, that if Lyndon Johnson and I were elected, we would get this country moving again. That pledge has been fulfilled. In nearly every field of national activity, this country is moving again and Texas is moving with it. From public works to public health, wherever Government programs operate, the past 3 years have seen a new burst of action and progress in Texas and all over America. We have stepped up the fight against crime and slums and poverty in our cities, against the pollution of our streams, against unemployment in our industry, and against waste in the Federal Government. We have built hospitals and clinics and nursing homes. We have launched a broad new attack on mental illness and mental retardation. We have initiated the training of more physicians and dentists. We have provided 4 times as much housing for our elderly citizens, and we have increased benefits for those on social security. Almost everywhere we look, the story is the same. In Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, in the councils of the world and in the jungles of far-off nations, there is now renewed confidence in our country and our convictions. For this country is moving and it must not stop. It cannot stop. For this is a time for courage and a time for challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed, to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom. So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our Nation's future is at stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our causeunited in our heritage of the past and our hopes for the future and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance. Kennedy was expected to deliver two speeches in Texas on the day that he was assassinated. The other, which was scheduled to take place at the Trade Mart in Dallas, was "recreated" by the Times of London and the creative Irish agency Rothco in March 2018: It took eight weeks to bring to life the 2,590 words John F Kennedy never got to speak. Sound engineers pulled 116,777 sound units from 831 of his speeches and radio addresses. These units were then split in half and analysed for pitch and energy. The half units, known as phones, were each about 0.04 seconds long and had to be tested next to each other to ensure that they did not clash. The W sound in weapons, for example, is not the same as the W sound in words. A portion of "JFK Unsilenced" recreation can be glimpsed below: Claim: "A passage from a speech JFK was supposed to deliver on the day he was assassinated stated that ""our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed, to all mankind."
[EX A]: The words of President John F. Kennedy that the world never got to hear.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In 2009, there were 119.45 male newborns for every 100 females, down from 120.56 in 2008 and the first decline in years, said Li Bin, head of the State Population and Family Planning Commission. The natural ratio should be about 105 males per 100 females at birth, but the gap has widened in China since it introduced a one-child policy three decades ago to curb population growth a restriction that bolstered a traditional preference for boys. Wider use of ultrasound and abortions has caused the imbalance to increase significantly in recent years, shocking ordinary Chinese and alarming leaders who worry violence and instability could plague a society full of unmarried young men. "Looked at from a comprehensive perspective, the lopsided sex ratio at birth has started to be contained," Li said in comments reported on the government's main website (www.gov.cn). She said it would take many more years to consolidate the trend, calling for more vigilance in rooting out pre-birth gender scans and abortions that do not serve a medical purpose. More than 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without spouses in 2020, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said last year. The government research institution named the imbalance as the most serious demographic problem faced by the country's 1.3 billion population. Claim: China takes baby steps in narrowing gender imbalance.
[EX A]: China has taken its first baby steps in narrowing a gender chasm that has left the country with tens of millions more boys than girls, an official said on Thursday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story made no mention of costs, societal, personal, or otherwise. Benefits, or lack thereof in this case, were not quantified. Instead, the journalist reported that men who were alive were no more likely to be screened for prostate cancer than men who were deceased. But, the actual numbers of men alive and deceased were not provided nor the proportion who indicated they had been screened or not screened. The potential harms of screening are appropriately discussed, namely that screening could be wrong (false positive or false negative), could lead to further testing (biopsy), and that detection could lead to treatment which has serious side effects without knowing for sure whether the cancer would have harmed you in the first place. The observational study design is described to readers (e.g. that two groups were chosen during a particular time period and matched). IThe story also talks about limitationsthat this is a small study and that this is not the final word on screening (presumably because study is observational and not a randomized clinical trial). The natural history of prostate cancer is appropriately reflected here that is, that prostate cancer may not kill you or even cause problems because it is often slow-growing and that screening and early treatment may do more harm than good. It tells readers in the opening lines that there is an on-going debate about screening. The study co-author is quoted, but his relationship to the study is disclosed. Representatives from medical organizations that issue recommendations about prostate cancer screening were quoted as well, namely confirming the uncertainty of screening. A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review from 2002 is also mentioned, further providing support for uncertainty of screening based on an objective review of the evidence. These sources also highlight that this uncertainty is not new. This story does provide information on the alternative to screening, in other words, not to be screened. Phrases such as "men should decide for themselves whether to get screened" and "for some men, detecting prostate cancer early can do more harm than good" appropriately develop the concept of not being screened compared to being screened. Disadvantages/advantages of screening and not screening are discussed (potential for downstream consequences, may not help men live longer, etc.). The story provides information on how long screening has been available. Likewise, it also states that these screening tests are performed millions of times each year in the U.S. The story states that results from study on prostate cancer screening are based on data from 24 through 129the "early years of prostate cancer screening." So, the story does tell us that prostate cancer screening is not new. Claim: Study Questions Prostate Cancer Screening
[EX A]:
The uncertainty of prostate cancer screening with PSA blood tests and/or digital rectal exams to reduce prostate cancer deaths is not new, although this report describes the latest study to find no mortality benefit with screening. Overall, the story does a great job of discussing the real issues that despite the popularity of prostate cancer screening (millions of tests in the US each year! ), the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening has not been established. The story includes a note on when we might know more based on the estimated date of completion of two large, ongoing screening trials (as opposed to observational studies like this one). One weakness of the story was that study results were not quantified; instead the findings were already interpreted for the readers who were not able to see the actual data figures.