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 Boehringer Ingelheim drug Micardis, or telmisartan, is typically used in patients with heart failure, but the study found it worked as well as the ACE inhibitor ramipril, marketed in the United States as Altace by King Pharmaceuticals Inc. "We have one more alternative to use," said Dr. Salim Yusuf of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. "This is probably key for the 20 to 30 percent of people who don't tolerate an ACE inhibitor," said Yusuf, who presented the study at a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago. Telmisartan is an angiotensin receptor blocker, or ARB. Ramipril is an angiotensin converting enzyme, or ACE, inhibitor. Both act on a compound called angiotensin in different ways to regulate blood pressure. A team of international researchers compared the drugs in a study of more than 25,620 patients with heart disease or diabetes and other heart risk factors, but not heart failure. Telmisartan and ramipril alone worked equally well to reduce cardiovascular death, stroke, heart attack or hospitalization for heart failure, but telmisartan was easier to tolerate than ramipril, with fewer patients experiencing cough or other side effects. Micardis is the first ARB to be shown to have heart benefits in patients who do not have heart disease. But since the drug is more costly than the typical ACE inhibitor, the study may not change practice, doctors said. "The newer drug is certainly not better," said Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist from the Cleveland Clinic. "The drugs were equivalent in the trial, which means that the same results can be achieved with an ACE inhibitor," Nissen said in an interview. "I think most physicians will choose the drugs that are generically available," he said. The study, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, also tested to see if Micardis combined with an ACE inhibitor might work even better. But the researchers found the combination caused a number of negative side-effects in patients who do not have heart failure. Yusuf said the findings mean doctors need to be careful not to use both drugs in patients. "What was even more important was adding the two together could cause harm," he said. Claim: Blood pressure drug Micardis cuts heart risk: study.
Solution:
The blood pressure drug Micardis was as effective in preventing serious heart problems in high-risk patients as certain older drugs, but with fewer side effects, international researchers said on Monday.