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: "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."

Ex Output:
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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "India has reported 471 cases of the coronavirus but health experts have warned that a big jump could be imminent, which would overwhelm the underfunded and crumbling public health infrastructure. On Monday, India confirmed two more deaths, bringing the total to nine. One was a 54-year-old man with no history of foreign travel, suggesting the start of community transmission of the virus, officials said. Streets were deserted in the national capital New Delhi and offices shut at the start of a lockdown to run till the end of the month. The government ordered commercial airlines to shut down domestic operations from midnight on Tuesday on top of a ban on international flights to try and contain the coronavirus. About 144 million people traveled on domestic flights last year. Rail travel, the lifeline of India, has already been suspended after thousands of people, mostly migrant workers, swarmed train stations to go home as businesses shut down and jobs dried up. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said many Indians were not taking the lockdown seriously. "Please save yourself, save your family, follow the instructions seriously," he said on Twitter. The chief minister of the western state of Maharashtra, which has had the highest number of cases in India, ordered a curfew from Tuesday to force people indoors. "Despite multiple requests, people are not following rules. This compelled the government to impose the curfew," Uddhav Thackeray said. The country's main stock exchange located in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra, will however remain open, an official said. On Monday night, the Indian government said 30 states and union territories, or 548 districts, were under "complete lockdown." Newspapers canceled print runs in Mumbai after vendors refused to distribute them due to worries about the coronavirus, which emerged in China late last year and has spread around the world. Globally, cases exceed 325,000 with deaths topping 14,000. The Pakistani army said on Monday night it would help to impose nationwide restrictions to contain the spread of the coronavirus following a request from the government. Major General Babar Iftikhar said schools, malls, restaurants, cinemas, marriage halls, swimming pools and markets would be shut as of Monday with only eateries, pharmaceutical companies and medical stores allowed to remain open. Prime Minister Imran Khan had previously said he opposed such stringent measures because of the economic consequences for the poor. A spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nepal ordered all land border crossings with India and China shut until March 29, saying thousands of people, most of them Nepali migrant workers, had crossed into Nepal in recent days from India, believing their homeland to be safer. Nepal reported its second case of the coronavirus on Monday, a citizen who had recently returned from France. "The closing of the border crossings is meant to ensure that no one infected with the virus crosses over to Nepal from India and China," said Surya Thapa, an aide to Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. Confirmed COVID-19 cases in South Asia: *Pakistan - 875 *India - 471 *Sri Lanka - 91 *Afghanistan - 42 *Bangladesh - 33 *Maldives - 13 *Nepal - 2 *Bhutan - 2 - TOTAL - 1,529 https://www.mohfw.gov.in hpb.health.gov.lk/en http://covid.gov.pk covid19.health.gov.mv/en" Claim: India shuts down flights, big cities as coronavirus toll rises in region.

Ex Output:
India on Monday announced a halt to domestic flights and said the majority of the country was under complete lockdown to stop the spread of coronavirus as the number of people dying of the disease ticked up across densely populated South Asia.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story does not mention the cost of oral food challenges. That's too bad because the economics of food challenges are part of the overall newsworthiness of the procedure, although it was not a focus of this particular study. Considering that oral food challenges take three to six hours and require multiple staff to provide adequate supervision, families with inadequate or no insurance may not consider looking into the time-consuming procedure. However, families of patients on special diets spend thousands of extra dollars per year on groceries. Prior research suggests that in the end, having a food challenge earlier rather than later could save money for children assessed as low risk. The story provides the percent of patients who were categorized as having no response, mild allergic response, and anaphylaxis. Because this wasn't a randomized controlled trial, those numbers summarize the important findings of the study. As the story explains, patients who experienced either mild or serious allergic reactions to the oral food challenge were treated with antihistamines or epinephrine respectively. For the 86% of patients who passed their food challenges with no adverse reactions, no harm was involved. This story is based on a study in whichdata were obtained via a physician survey in five food allergy centers across the United States. The researchers used a statistical procedure called meta-analysis to pool the proportion of reactions and anaphylaxis. The fact that this study used secondary data generated between 2008 and 2013, and that the data came from clinical records rather than controlled trials isn't a bad thing, but it should have been mentioned in the story, as well as the limitations that stem from this kind of research (all research has limitations). No disease mongering is present in the story. Severe food allergies can be life threatening, but the story focuses on the daily experience of children who live with them. The story cites one expert not involved in the research, and we could find no potential conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The independent source provided a quote that we wished had been explored more in-depth: "But it's also possible [some of them] never truly had a food allergy." This is an important pointhow much did the study help actually overturn incorrect diagnoses? In one sense, the only alternative to having an oral food challenge is not having an oral food challenge, and possibly not discovering that a child has grown out of an allergy. That issue is covered in this story. Another important point is that skin prick tests have been found to produce misleading results in a large proportion of patients. There is a growing conviction among researchers and practitioners that the only way to confirm beyond doubt that an individual has a food allergy is to conduct a food challenge. That alternative was mentioned in the story, but more emphasis would have presented a fuller picture of the significance of the study findings. The story doesn't discuss how easy it is to find an allergy clinic that does oral food challenges, but it does refer parents to allergists for further discussion. The study on which this story was based is described by the researchers as being thelargest national survey of allergic reactions of clinical open oral food challenges in a nonresearch setting in the United States. The story doesn't note this, making it unclear what's novel about the research. The story quotes one outside expert, so it appears not to rely on a news release. Claim: This Test Can Determine Whether You've Outgrown A Food Allergy

Ex Output:
This story reports the results of a study of 6,300 oral food challenges, or medically supervised allergy tests, to determine whether patients have outgrown their food allergies. The story did a good job discussing how oral food challenges work, and included an expert source not directly connected to the research who provided important context. It discussed the risks of oral food challenges, and why they are best done in a carefully monitored setting. The story would have scored stronger if it had better described what kind of research this was, and what made it novel. We also think a discussion of how much oral challenge tests typically costwith and without insurancewould be useful information for parents. One minor quibble: The headline made it sound like this was a new testit's not. What's new is the research findings and what they illuminate for doctors. It's important to determine the effectiveness of oral food challenges because food allergies affectup to 6 million people,and cost in the aggregate$24 billion annually in medical and food costs and lost labor productivity. At a family level, finding foods their children can eat can be challenging for parents, and errors can have serious, even life-threatening consequences. This story will help people understand how often food allergies are likely to dissipate, as well as how best to find out that information.