Detailed Instructions: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
See one example below:
Problem: "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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

Problem: "The story notes that TXA is cheap, but we wish it had puta dollar amount on it the way competing coverage did. The cost of the medication wascitedin the press release put out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and could easily have been included. ""Cheap"" is relative. And, pertinent to this issue, what's ""cheap"" in the West may not be so cheap in developing countries. Unlike some competing coverage, this story describes the benefits of TXA in bothrelative and absoluteterms, providing readers with an accurate view of the magnitude of theeffect observed in the study. Unfortunately, the storyloses this balance when itunquestioningly passes along the claim that TXA could save 100,000 lives in ayear if it were used around the globe. Whilea back-of-the-envelope calculation may suggest that this is possible, many hurdles stand in the way ofthis drug beinguniversally dispensed for trauma cases worldwide. It's also far from clear that the findings of this study can be replicated under everyday conditions in emergency departments around the globe. The story should have tapped an expert to help put thispie-in-the-sky figure in a more appropriate context for readers. The story correctlystates that the researchers observed no increase in clots in the patients receiving TXA, earning enough for a satisfactory. However, we wish it had included, as the AP did,a caveat regarding the difficulty of identifying clotsintrauma patients who subsequently die. Similar to the competing coverage from the AP and NPR, this story provided theessentials but lacked sufficientdiscussion of limitations. To wit: Can a study that includes data from India, China,Nigeria and many other developing countries be generalized to emergency department patients in the United States? No disease-mongering here. The story quotes the author of an accompanying editorial who was not affiliated with the study and does not appear to have conflicts regarding the research. Unlike thecompeting coverage from the AP and NPR, this storymentions the fact that there are other drugswhich help promote clotting and might be usefulfor trauma patients. The story correctly warns that the benefits of TXAcan't be generalized to other drugs without additional research. The story notes that TXA is widely available around the world and easily administered. The story quotes an expert who says that using TXA in trauma patients is a new idea. The approach does appear to be novel. The story quotestwo expert sources, one of whom was not mentioned in the press release issued to promotethe study. This is enough to rule out the possibility that the story was based entirely on a release."
Solution:
Drug That Stops Bleeding Could Save Lives