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: Plaintiffs Russell Geissler, Bernard Bagley and Willie James Jackson filed a lawsuit in 2017 against the Department of Corrections over a lack of treatment for hepatitis C. A proposed class-action settlement was submitted after the lawsuit was filed. "This is a major step toward eliminating a point source for hepatitis C," class counsel Reuben Guttman, with the law firm Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, said in a press release. Judge Margaret Seymour gave the proposed settlement the preliminary approval, news outlets reported. Identifying and treating inmates with hepatitis C will cost between $4,000 and $15,000 per person, depending on the individual's health. The agency began testing current and former inmates in 2018. The department also received $10 million in its 2019-2020 budget to cover drugs, staffing, equipment and other expenses related to the testing and treatment for hepatitis C. Testing for all 18,125 South Carolina inmates is on schedule to be completed by June. The agency's director, Bryan Stirling, said this a big step toward providing inmates with a safe environment. "We know that about 85% of inmates return to society within five years, and this will save medical treatment costs for taxpayers in the long run," Stirling said. Hepatitis C is a viral infection that is spread through exposure to blood or blood products, commonly through sharing needles during intravenous drug use. Claim: Mandated hep C treatment for SC inmates gets initial consent.
[EX A]: A federal judge granted preliminary approval Tuesday of a proposed settlement mandating testing and treatment for hepatitis C of all inmates in South Carolina correction facilities.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Now the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is questioning the role played by nominee Nancy Beck in the decision to shelve the guidelines. Beck is not a medical doctor and has no background in virology. President Donald Trump has nominated Beck to be chairwoman and commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a position that requires Senate confirmation. Beck is scheduled to appear before the Senate committee later this month. Emails obtained by The Associated Press show that Beck was the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's main point of contact in the White House about the proposed recommendations. At issue was a 63-page guide created by the CDC that would give community leaders step-by-step instructions for reopening schools, day care centers, restaurants and other facilities. Beck is currently on detail for the White House with the Office of Management and Budget, where she is coordinating review of pandemic-related stimulus measures, and of the CDC guidance. She has a doctorate in environmental health and has worked as a toxicologist, specializing in the study of the health risks from chemical substances to the human body. "I am deeply concerned by the nominee's involvement in advocating for the deregulation of toxic chemicals known as PFAS and I also have questions about her potential involvement with the CDC coronavirus guidance," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the committee, in a statement to AP. Cantwell sent a letter of inquiry on Wednesday to Beck, asking for more information. Beck did not immediately respond to questions from AP sent to her via email. Beck's role in the coronavirus guidance document was revealed in a series of emails from late April obtained by the AP. On April 10, CDC Director Robert Redfield emailed the guidance to a group that included some of the president's closest White House advisers, including Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and counselor Kellyanne Conway, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government's top infectious disease expert. Redfield wrote that he wanted White House review and clearance to post the documents on the CDC website. By the time the administration had released its "Opening Up America Again" plan on April 17, the process had stalled. The emails show that the CDC's chief of staff, Robert "Kyle" McGowan, emailed Beck on April 26 seeking an update. "We need them as soon as possible so that we can get them posted," McGowan wrote. Beck responded that they still needed approval. "WH principals are in touch with the task force so the task force should be aware of status." The next day McGowan checked with Beck again. "I have no word on revisions yet for the rest of the package. My understanding is it is still being reviewed," she responded. One of Beck's colleagues, Satya P. Thallam, followed up saying the White House Principal's Committee had not yet responded. "However, I am passing along their message: they have given strict and explicit direction that these documents are not yet cleared and cannot go out as of right now this includes related press statements or other communications that may preview content or timing of guidances." McGowan responded that White House changes would cause further delay. "The comments and edits we get back will have to be reviewed at the CDC for scientific accuracy," McGowan responded to Thallam and Beck. "We will not be able to post the document we get back from the WH quickly if there are a substantial number of edits." On April 30, one day before Trump's May 1 reopening goal, McGowan was told guidelines will "never see the light of day," according to three sources inside CDC who were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. In her letter, Cantwell said the emails raise "serious questions about whether you believe in preserving and respecting the scientific and professional integrity of scientists and health professionals that work at agencies like the CDC and the CPSC." On Thursday, another committee Democrat cited AP's story in calling on the administration to withdraw Beck's nomination. "Nancy Beck reportedly led efforts to thwart CDC's science-based guidance for protecting public health exactly the wrong credential for a nominee to lead the CPSC, and clear reason her nomination should be withdrawn," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. An OMB spokesperson said the initial submission to the office was the "start of the deliberative process, not the end, and everyone knows that," and added the White House appreciated that Beck continued "serving her country by helping the government respond to this pandemic while her nomination was pending." Before joining the Trump administration, Beck was a senior director for policy at the American Chemistry Council, the primary lobbying arm for U.S. chemical manufacturers. In that role, she frequently testified on Capitol Hill against stricter safeguards to protect human health and the environment from toxins. In 2017, she joined the Environmental Protection Agency as a top official in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. She oversaw efforts to block or weaken Obama-era regulations on harmful substances including asbestos, and at the White House was involved in a rewrite of limits on PFAS. Those are class of chemicals used in making nonstick cooking pans and raincoats, and the chemicals have been linked to birth defects. Democrats and environmentalists have opposed her nomination to lead the consumer agency. While she awaits Senate confirmation, Beck has been assigned to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which consults with the president on matters of economic policy. On May 7, the day AP ran a story about the administration shelving the guidance, McGowan emailed Beck and copied Redfield. "When can we expect OMB comments on the rest of the guidance? We would really like to get these moving," he wrote. Late that afternoon, the White House called the CDC and told the agency to resend a series of detailed "decision trees" that had been shelved. Emails showed staff working on the guidance said they would "stand down." At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the coronavirus, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., asked Redfield about the status of that guidance. Redfield replied: "Soon." ___ Dearen reported from Gainesville, Florida. Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP investigative reporters Jason Dearen at http://twitter.com/JHDearen and Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck Claim: Emails: Trump nominee involved in shelving CDC virus guide.
[EX A]: A former chemical industry executive nominated to be the nation's top consumer safety watchdog was involved in sidelining detailed guidelines to help communities reopen during the coronavirus pandemic, internal government emails show.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Older adults who underwent a brief course of brain exercises saw improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed that could be detected as long as 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever on cognitive training. The findings, published on Monday in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, offer welcome news in the search for ways to keep the mind sharp as 76 million baby boomers in the United States advance into old age. The federally sponsored trial of almost 3,000 older adults, called the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study, or ACTIVE, looked at how three brain training programs - focusing on processing speed, memory and reasoning ability - affected cognitively normal adults as they aged. People in the study had an average age of 74 when they started the training, which involved 10 to 12 sessions lasting 60 to 75 minutes each. After five years, researchers found, those with the training performed better than their untrained counterparts in all three measures. Although gains in memory seen at the study's five-year mark appeared to drop off over the next five years, gains in reasoning ability and processing speed persisted 10 years after the training. "What we found was pretty astounding. Ten years after the training, there was evidence the effects were durable for the reasoning and the speed training," said George Rebok, an expert on aging and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the study. Participants in all three training groups also reported that they had an easier time with daily activities such as managing their medications, cooking meals or handling their finances than did participants who did not get the training. But standard tests of these activities showed no differences between the groups. "The speed-of-processing results are very encouraging," said study co-author Jonathan King, program director for cognitive aging in the Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the research. King said the self-reported improvements in daily function were interesting, but added, "We do not yet know whether they would truly allow older people to live independently longer." However, researchers said even a small gain would be likely to ease the burden on caregivers and healthcare providers. "If we delay the onset of difficulties in daily activities even by a small amount, that can have major public health implications in terms of helping to curb healthcare costs, delaying entry into institutions and hospitals," Rebok said. The training course was designed to bolster specific cognitive abilities that begin to slip as people age. It does not aim to prevent dementia caused by underlying disease such as Alzheimer's. At the start of the study, all 2,832 participants were cognitively normal. The study included four groups: three training groups plus a control group of volunteers who came in for regular testing to see how they were faring with age. People were trained in small groups over a period of several weeks and then were tested immediately after the training and again one, two, three, five and 10 years later. About 60 percent of the volunteers who underwent training also got booster training sessions, which enhanced the initial benefits. At the end of the trial, all groups showed declines compared with their initial baseline tests in memory, reasoning and processing speed, but those who got training in reasoning and processing speed experienced less decline. Among those given training in reasoning strategies, 73.6 percent were still performing above their pre-trial baseline level, compared with 61.7 percent of those who received no training and were only benefiting from practice on the test. The effect was even greater in processing speed. Among the training group, 70.7 percent of participants were performing at or above their baseline level, compared with 48.8 percent of those in the control group. There was no difference in memory performance between the memory group and the control group after 10 years. Two of the three training programs - the memory and the reasoning strategies - were done with paper and pencil, while the processing speed training was done on a computer. The programs, developed by the researchers, were focused largely on teaching strategies to improve cognitive performance. For example, the memory training taught people how to remember word lists, sequences and main ideas, while the reasoning training focused on things like recognizing number patterns. In the processing speed training, people were asked to focus on the main object in a computer screen while also trying to quickly recognize and identify objects on the periphery of the screen. Such training can help older drivers with things like recognizing road signs while driving. A version of the speed training program developed for this trial is now commercially available through the brain fitness company Posit Science, but the researchers are working on making other types of training available as well. Rebok's team just got a grant from the National Institute on Aging to make a computerized version of the memory test, with the hope that repeated training can improve the results. The study was not designed to explain why cognitive training can have such a lasting effect. Rebok said it may be that people take the strategies they learn and practice them over time. As they age, trained individuals can rely on these strategies to compensate for their declines. Whether this training actually strengthened the brain in the way that exercising builds muscle is not clear, but the government intends to study this, too. Last week, NIA put out a request for proposals that would study whether cognitive training causes physical changes in the brain. Claim: Brain training helped older adults stay sharp for years: study.
[EX A]:
A brief course of brain exercises helped older adults hold on to improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed for 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever done on cognitive training.