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: "Amid ongoing protests in Ferguson, Mo., the national conversation about racial justice and police force has ignored a critical point that needs to be discussed, said Fox News pundit Juan Williams Civil rights activists and black leaders have failed to address the very thing that's fueling conservative, white backlash the high crime rate among the black community, particularly among young black men, Williams said on Aug. 24th's Fox News Sunday. ""I think there's fear of intimidation, harassment being legitimized by the fact that there is a high rate of crime, especially among young black men,"" Williams said. ""No. 1 cause of death, young black men 15 to 34 murder. Who's committing the murder? Not police. Other black men."" Last year, PolitiFact found that 93 percent of murder victims were killed by someone who shares their race. This time, we want to check out Williams' claim that homicide is the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old. Unnatural causes We looked at numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which lists the leading causes of death across all demographics. Experts said that CDC data, compiled from coroner reports, are in line with FBI numbers, sourced from police reports. The CDC does not distinguish between the types of homicide (criminal, justified, etc.) or the types of accidents (auto accidents, falls, firearm discharge, etc.). The numbers for 2011, the most recent CDC findings, are consistent with data from previous years. According to the CDC, homicide was indeed the No. 1 killer of black men between the ages of 15 and 34 in 2011. Accidents ranked second in causes of death, and suicide claimed the third amount of black male lives between 15 and 24 years old, while heart disease ranked third for men 24-34. Leading causes of death among black males 1st 2nd 3rd All ages Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Accidents 1-4 Accidents Homicide Congenital malformations 5-14 Accidents Malignant neoplasms Homicide 15-24 Homicide Accidents Suicide 25-34 Homicide Accidents Diseases of the heart 35-44 Diseases of the heart Accidents Homicide 45-54 Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Accidents 55-84 Malignant neoplasms Diseases of the heart Cerebrovascular diseases 84-older Diseases of the heart Malignant neoplasms Cerebrovascular diseases Source: CDC Comparedto other ethnicities, the numbers really stand out. Forty percent of African-American males15-34 who died were murdered, according to the CDC, compared to just 3.8 percent of white maleswho died. Overall, 14 percent of all men 15-34 who died in 2011 were murdered. In 2011, black males 15-34 were 10 times more likely to die of murder than whites of the same age group. Sources: CDC, PunditFact calculations For men of all ages, homicide was ranked fifth in leading causes of deaths for blacks (4.6 percent), seventh for Hispanics (2.8 percent), and ninth for American Indians (2.3 percent). Homicide was not one of the top 15 causes of death for whites 15-34. Color lines Why are so many young black males dying from homicide? As the laws of aging go, younger men are less prone to fall victim to natural causes of death, so they are more likely to die of unnatural causes. And the racial disparity between those causes has partially to do with the likelihood of getting into car-related accidents, said James Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University. ""Suburban whites drive more than urban blacks, and putting in more miles on highways that's important because not a lot of people are going to get killed in fender benders in neighborhood streets,"" Fox said. ""There are relatively few auto-accidents in black urban areas."" Beyond driving habits, the criminal homicide rate among young black males is significantly higher than other groups. This, experts agreed, has to do with poverty and geography. The difference in social structures, access to jobs, educational opportunities, and many other factors between impoverished black neighborhoods and others is often a matter of life and death, according to Eli Silverman, professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. ""The (homicide) numbers highlight the condition in minority areas, where a lot of violence occurs and the whole way of life is further intensified because police surveillance is always trying to track down people,"" he said. ""People have heightened survival instincts, will do anything to survive, and they'll seek retribution for anything...because they don't trust law enforcement."" Though it is tempting to pinpoint one cause as more impactful than others, Silverman cautions against singling out poverty or drugs or any other factor as the cause, because all of them intermix and interact. Our ruling Williams said that the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old is murder. CDC data supports the claim. Out of all causes of death, homicide claimed about 40 percent of black lives between 15 and 34 years. This was significantly higher than the national average for males of that age group, and all other racial groups." Claim: The No. 1 cause of death for African-American males15-34 is murder.
[EX A]: Williams said that the No. 1 cause of death for black men 15-34 years old is murder. CDC data supports the claim. Out of all causes of death, homicide claimed about 40 percent of black lives between 15 and 34 years. This was significantly higher than the national average for males of that age group, and all other racial groups.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Even though the majority of strokes and heart attacks occur in people who are 65 and older, studies have found that cholesterol-lowering drugs are not prescribed as often for older people as they are for younger people," Dr. Seemant Chaturvedi of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, said in a statement. "These results show that using these drugs is just as beneficial for people who are over 65 as they are for younger people." In April, British researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that treating high blood pressure in people 80 and older cut their risk of fatal strokes and other heart problems. Statins cut the risk of heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of fatty substances such as low-density lipoprotein, or "bad" cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also raise levels of high-density lipoprotein or "good" cholesterol. They include atorvastatin, made by Pfizer Inc under the brand name Lipitor; pravastatin or Pravachol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb; fluvastatin, made by Novartis AG under the brand name Lescol, and several others. Seemant and colleagues studied 4,731 people 18 and older who had a recent stroke or a mini-stroke as part of a study sponsored by Pfizer. About half were over 65, with an average age of 72. The other half were under 65 and had an average age of 54. In each age group, about half were taking Lipitor and the other half were on a placebo. The statin worked equally well in both groups, the researchers reported in the journal Neurology. It lowered LDL cholesterol by about 61 points in the group of older patients and by about 59 points in the younger age group. Stroke is the No. 3 killer in the United States behind heart disease and cancer. The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 780,000 Americans will have strokes this year. They will kill 150,000 people and permanently disable 15 percent to 30 percent of survivors. Claim: Statins fight stroke in older people too.
[EX A]: Older people who have had a stroke or mini-stroke benefit from cholesterol-lowering statin drugs just as much as younger people do, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called "double jeopardy clause" of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and NeilM. Gorsuch dissented. On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gamble's lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on "double jeopardy," which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitution's double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or "separate sovereigns") which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) This "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gamble's filing. The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been "long held", and "consistently endorsed" by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of "[p]recedent, experience, and reason alike," The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as "not a new question," having been "invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" Each sovereign is entitled to "exercis[e] its own sovereignty" to "determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity" and prosecute the offender "without interference by the other." Under petitioner's interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereign's efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereign's similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitution's bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: "Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause." The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. "Under the dual sovereignty doctrine," Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, "as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the 'same offense.'" The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the President's pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedy's retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the president's legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this case's having importance with regard to President Trump's pardon power: Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trump's power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldn't be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed then Trump's pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, "the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally but with some existing limits can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon," explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that "the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states' core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context." Claim: Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, could be a deciding vote on a case that has the potential to dramatically increase the power of the presidential pardon.
[EX A]:
Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case.