user: 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: "Although the story didn’t cite the cost of appendectomy – emergency or urgent surgery – and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn’t give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients’ condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn’t give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients’ condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story – and one we applaud – when it begins:  ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn’t have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn’t include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can’t be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require ’emergency’ surgery
Example output: We really don’t understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space – and clearly it didn’t need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: "Leaders of the U.S. Army need to take more active steps to prevent a growing number of soldiers from committing suicide, according to a major study released by the Army. Gen. Peter Chiarelli discussed the study on This Week with Christiane Amanpour. The study documented complex pressures -- including overly long deployments, more tolerance for high-risk behavior among soldiers and lax standards for leaders keeping tabs on their soldiers. Another complicating factor: increased use of prescription antidepressants, anti-anxiety drugs and pain medications. ""We know that we had over 106,000 soldiers last year who had a prescription of three weeks or more for some kind of antidepressant, anti-anxiety medicine,"" said Chiarelli. A few moments later, he added, ""A portion of those 106,000 soldiers that I told you are on some kind of pain medication, it has nothing to do with a behavior health issue. There are soldiers who have been on two, three, four deployments, hucking a rucksack filled with equipment that may weigh 70 to 80 pounds at 8,000 feet, and they've got a knee injury or a leg injury that is painful. Probably should stay home and get operated on, but they go back for the second deployment, and they're on some kind of a pain medication. We have soldiers who suck it up all the time and hide from their leaders when they're hurt."" Chiarelli was referring to information in the Army's Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention Report, released Aug. 5, 2010. This seemed like an important issue to explore further. The report explains that historically, the Army's suicide rate has been much lower than the civilian population's. But the Army's rate began increasing in 2004 and surpassed the national average in 2008. That year, the suicide rate in the Army was 20.2 per 100,000, compared with a typical civilian rate of 19.2. This increase prompted the study. ""In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, 160 active duty Soldiers took their lives, making suicide the third leading cause of death among the Army population,"" the study states. ""If we include accidental death, which frequently is the result of high risk behavior (drinking and driving, drug overdose, etc. ), we find that less young men and women die in combat than die by their own actions. Simply stated, we are often more dangerous to ourselves than the enemy."" The report affirms the 106,000 number that Chiarelli uses. ""Latest accounts estimate that approximately 106,000 Soldiers are prescribed some form of pain, depression or anxiety medications. The potential for abuse is obvious,"" it states. The report also discusses whether these and other prescription drugs are being abused by members of the military:  ""There is concern that potential prescription drug abuse is masked in our current system. This is the result of the increase in prescriptions which expands the population authorized to use pharmaceuticals. For example, the growing population who has obtained prescriptions for amphetamines has resulted in an increased rate of authorized use. Unfortunately, there is no definitive method to ascertain if the use was authorized or illicit. As a result, we have masked a subset of that population who are either dependent or illicitly use drugs. Ultimately, if left unchecked, this gap facilitates a population of drug addicts and distributors."" The report also notes that many soldiers are aged 18 to 29, and there are continuing questions about the use of antidepressants -- specifically, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) -- among young people, and whether these medications sometimes increase the risk of suicide. ""The Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) is cognizant of this issue and is investigating the use of these and other medications to better manage care,"" the report states. The report makes additional observations about prescription drug users in the military. Pain medications seem to be more common than antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs; ""14% of the force is taking some form of opiate medication,"" according to the report. The percentage for antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications appear somewhat lower, with between 3 and 6 percent of the deployed force receiving such medication, according to evidence the report cites. Anecdotal evidence in the report indicates some soldiers receive multiple prescriptions for pain and depression. We should emphasize the study draws no hard conclusions about the role that prescription drugs play in military suicides. ""The impact of increased use of antidepressant, psychiatric and narcotic pain management medications has not been comprehensively studied in a military population,"" the report states. In the interview with Amanpour, Chiarelli rejected the idea that soldiers were overly medicated. ""We know that the drugs that we're talking about are cleared by the CENTCOM surgeon for soldiers to be taking when they're downrange. So we're not sending any soldier into harm's way who is taking a drug that we feel would somehow endanger him or others,"" he said. Finally, we should note that the report links policing potential drug addiction to military leadership in a section titled ""The Lost Art of Leadership in Garrison."" The Army has been transformed in recent years, the report states, so that combat readiness has been emphasized more than ""good order and discipline practices."" Unannounced health and welfare checks and inspections ""have been lost"" as part of that transition. ""There are instances where a leader’s lack of Soldier accountability resulted in suicide victims not being found until they had been dead for three or four weeks,"" the report noted. While the report raises a host of issues, we're only ruling on what the general said about the rate of medication among soldiers. The Army report and other testimony that we found support Chiarelli's statement that approximately 106,000 soldiers had ""a prescription of three weeks or more"" for pain, depression or anxiety medication." Claim: "About 106,000 soldiers had ""a prescription of three weeks or more"" for pain, depression or anxiety medication."
A:

assistant: U.S. Army report documents problem of suicides in the military.