Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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
Solution: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: The Chattanooga police investigation found Shawn Hickey had counseled at least six Moccasin Bend Mental Health Institute patients who had been criminally charged by the department, creating a conflict of interest, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports, citing an internal affairs report. In January, the 23-year department veteran was spotted arriving late to mandatory in-service trainings and leaving early. He was placed on administrative leave in August pending the internal investigation. When asked about his training attendance, Hickey told investigators that he did leave at least one class early, but he didn't remember why. He also acknowledged having a second job at the mental health institute where he worked "almost every day except for the weekend." He was pretty sure he took time off from that job for the training though, he told investigators. Hickey's captain and assistant chief knew about Hickey's other job, but were told that it was only part time and wouldn't interfere with his police responsibilities. The investigation found Hickey was actually working as a full-time social worker, clocking more than 37 hours at the institute during the week of police training. Hickey was fired from the mental health institute this summer after an internal investigation by the state Department of Mental Health found a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with Hickey's role at the police department. The state alerted the police department to the six cases in which Hickey counseled patients criminally charged by the department. It said he also didn't disclose his role with the department to those patients. A review of the GPS records for Hickey's department-issued vehicle found that he would park the vehicle overnight at locations that weren't his home address. He told investigators that he had been staying with his girlfriend, according to the report, which says he described the relationship as "great friends who travel together" and was trying to hide it from his wife. During a subsequent interview, Hickey told investigators, "OK, you caught me," according to the report. He was fired last month and declined to comment when contacted by the newspaper on Tuesday. Claim: Tennessee officer fired after working 2nd job while on duty.
Solution:
A Tennessee police officer has been fired after an internal investigation found he was working a second job as a psychiatric social worker while on duty.