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: On 10 June 2016, the Daily Beast reported that Sen. David Perdue urged attendees of the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference to pray for misfortune and death to befall President Barack Obama: At a major event for conservative Christians this morning, a Republican senator joked about praying for President Obama’s “days to be short.” Sen. David Perdue, a freshman senator from Georgia, opened his remarks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference by encouraging attendees to pray for President Obama. But, he added in a joking tone, they need to pray for him in a very specific way: “We should pray for him like Psalms 109:8 says: Let his days be few, and let another have his office,” the senator said, smiling wryly. The crowd chuckled and he moved on with his address. The rest of that passage, which Perdue did not recite, reads, “May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.” The psalm is a pointed, lengthy death wish for one of David’s enemies. Video depicted Purdue’s 10 June 2016 remarks:  Psalms 109:8 (alternately named “Song of the Slandered”) was rendered in the manner below in the King James Bible: Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise; For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause. For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer. And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love. Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. As many pointed out, the Senator’s Biblical reference wasn’t a new or even uncommon scripture-based jab at President Obama. A 2009 article reported that the verse was traction across the internet as a veiled threat cloaked in the guise of prayerful intent: There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8” A nice sentiment? Maybe not. The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office. But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.” The slogan comes at a time of heightened concern about antigovernment anger. Earlier this year, the president’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, said that Tea Parties could lead to something unhealthy. In September, authorities shut down a poll on Facebook asking if President Obama should be killed. Still, that doesn’t push the Psalms citation into the realm of hate speech, says Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). That particular piece was published during President Obama’s first term in office. Some argued at the time that the reference to the verse simply expressed a hope that he not be re-elected to a second term: Deborah Lauter, director of civil rights at the Anti-Defamation League agrees that the bumper sticker falls within acceptable political discourse. “The problem is you don’t know if people who are donning that message in a shirt or on a bumper sticker are fully aware of the quote or what follows. Obviously that message makes the ambiguity disappear. If they’re just referring to him being out of office, that’s one thing. If they’re referring to him being dead, that’s so offensive. It’s protected speech, but it’s clearly offensive.” However, that motive ceased to be relevant after Obama’s 2012 re-election. A representative for the Senator provided a terse statement to a Bloomberg reporter about the controversy: David Perdue spokeswoman Caroline Vanvick responds in an email: “He in no way wishes harm towards our president” pic.twitter.com/PPj5jtZv0n — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 10, 2016  The statement read: Senator Perdue said we are called to pray for our country, for our leaders, and for our president. He in no way wishes harm towards our president and everyone in the room understood that. However, we should add the media to our prayer list because they are pushing a narrative to create controversy and this is exactly what the American people are tired of. It is true Sen. David Perdue laughed and referenced Psalms 109:8 during a 10 June 2016 conservative Christian event. A representative for the Senator addressed the ensuing controversy, blaming the media for “pushing a narrative” for the outcry. Claim: Sen. David Perdue advised attendees to offer up an ominous prayer aimed at President Obama during the 2016 Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference.
Example Output: What's true: Sen. David Perdue referenced Psalms 109:8 at an event; Perdue's representative later denied he wished death on the President. What's false: Sen. Perdue didn't explicitly state attendees at the conference should pray expressly for the President to die.

Example Input: Paragraph: We’ll rule this not applicable because, in general, most people have ballpark knowledge of how much chocolate costs. The story did not mention that dark chocolate is typically more expensive than milk chocolate — especially for the premium brands with very high concentrations of cocoa solids. A brief explanation would have been helpful. The story went the extra mile here, providing the absolute rates of stroke seen in the groups consuming the lowest and highest quantities of chocolate. “Among those with the highest weekly chocolate intake — more than 45 grams — there were 2.5 strokes per 1,000 women per year. That figure was 7.8 per 1,000 among women who ate the least (less than 8.9 grams per week).” These statistics weren’t provided in the study text, suggesting that the writer made the calculations based on data contained in one of the study tables. We applaud the extra effort made to provide meaningful statistics to readers! Close call here, but the story goes a step further than WebMD when discussing the possible adverse effects of consuming too much chocolate. In addition to warning that chocolate has a lot of fat, sugar and calories, it explicitly notes that eating too much of it “could be counterproductive.” WebMD offers no comparable warning and suggests that eating more chocolate than was consumed in this study would result in similar health benefits. This story was much more cautious in its depiction of the findings than the competing WebMD coverage. Most important, it was careful to explain high up that the study found only a correlation between chocolate intake and lower stroke risk. As one of the study authors explains: “Given the observational design of the study, findings from this study cannot prove that it’s chocolate that lowers the risk of stroke.” We also appreciate the story’s more nuanced language regarding which constituents of chocolate might be responsible for possible benefits. Whereas WebMD states unequivocally that flavonoids and antioxidants “deserve the credit” for these benefits, Reuters says more judiciously that  flavonoids “may be responsible for chocolate’s apparent effects on health.” [Emphasis ours.] “Whether that theoretical benefit translates into real-life benefits remains to be proven by rigorous studies, however,” Reuters appropriately adds. There was no disease-mongering. This was the only major shortcoming — no independent perspective. An expert in epidemiology might have pointed out, for example, that the data on chocolate consumption were collected from subject self-reports, and therefore should be viewed cautiously. The availability of chocolate is not in question. The story appropriately notes that there is a stronger statistical association with dark chocolate as opposed to milk chocolate. The story notes that previous research has linked higher levels of chocolate consumption with improved heart health. The story includes comments attributed to a direct email from one of the study authors, so we can confirm our overall impression that this story wasn’t based on a press release. Claim: Chocolate lovers have fewer strokes, study finds
Example Output: Starting with the headline, this story is careful to explain that the study observed fewer strokes in those who ate more chocolate; it doesn’t suggest that the chocolate prevented strokes. It also features excellent use of statistics, a more explicit description of potential harms, and mentions alternative approaches to prevention. The only major shortcoming was a lack of an independent perspective on the findings. Some journalists may balk at our insistence that stories about observational studies include appropriate discussion of the limitations of the evidence. In only 378 words, this story provides another example that this can be done – and it doesn’t require the length of a full medical journal article to do so.

Example Input: Paragraph: Kirsty Hartley was sentenced Thursday. The sentence includes 18 months of house arrest. U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister says Hartley’s husband, Dalton Hartley, was given the same sentence because he received the drugs from her. Kirsty Hartley pleaded guilty to distributing a prescription painkiller outside the usual course of professional practice. Dalton Hartley pleaded guilty acquiring controlled substances through fraud. Kirsty Hartley worked at a CVS pharmacy. She admitted she gave more than 21,000 tablets of hydrocodone with acetaminophen to her husband. He consumed or traded them for marijuana. As part of her plea, Kirsty Hartley surrendered her pharmacist’s license. Claim: Salina pharmacist, husband sentenced in opioid diversion.
Example Output:
A 29-year-old Salina pharmacist has been sentenced to three years of probation for diverting prescription drugs containing opioids.

