You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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.
Why? 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.

New input: Paragraph: "Bing West, Marine veteran of Vietnam and an expert on counterinsurgency warfare, was discussing military preparedness with host Gene Valicenti last week on WPRO-AM. They were talking about Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's proposed defense budget, which includes, among other spending cuts, trimming the Army from its current level of 520,000 troops to as low as 440,000 active duty soldiers, the lowest level since before World War II. West opposes the troop reductions, saying such cuts would make it difficult for the United States to respond quickly to future military threats. If those kinds of cuts must be made, he said, it is common sense to have a backup mobilization plan in place to rapidly increase the size of the military. In other words, he said, a draft. Besides the obvious political challenges in reinstituting the draft, which ended in 1973, West said there's a logistical problem as well: Seventy-five percent of the young adults in this country are not mentally or physically fit to serve, he said. Watch out, Valicenti warned, Politifact might hear you. Well, we did. West's number sounded high, so we went out to muster the facts. When we called West, he said he got the figure from reports he'd read in newspapers around the country, most recently the Washington Post. We looked for the original research that might have driven those reports, and we found it. The 75 percent unfit figure has been reported for a few years now. It came from a 2009 report called ""Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve, 75 Percent of Young Adults Cannot Join the Military."" The report was prepared by Mission Readiness, an organization that includes 89 retired military officials, including a former navy secretary, and officers from generals to chief petty officers and sergeant majors. The group advocates for improvements in the United States' education system and the health of the nation's youth. The report said increasing obesity rates among Americans ages 17 to 24, declining high school graduation rates and criminal backgrounds were severely narrowing the pool of applicants who could meet the armed forces' academic and physical health standards for recruits. The report noted that one in four young Americans lacks a high school diploma and 30 percent of those who have one and try to enlist fail the military's math and reading tests. It also estimated that 27 percent of those between 17 and 24 could not hit the armed forces' weight limits and 32 percent had other health problems, such as asthma, poor eyesight or hearing or attention deficit disorders, that ruled them out for military service. The report also said about 10 percent of the potential military service population was ineligible because of at least one prior felony or serious misdemeanor. Mission:Readiness isn't the only one sounding that alarm. On March 3, 2009, Curtis Gilroy, then the director of the accession policy office of the undersecretary for defense for personnel and readiness, told the U. S. Congress' House Armed Services Committee pretty much the same thing. He cited the primary drivers as obesity and low high school graduation rates when he said ""we find that only 25 percent of our young people today, aged 17 to 24, are qualified for military service. Not a good situation."" Our ruling Bing West said 75 percent of young adults in the United States were physically or mentally unfit to serve in the military. The Defense Department and a non-governmental organization have both done research that support his claim. We find the statement . (Comment on this ruling on providencejournal.com. If you have a claim you'd like us to check, send it to [emailprotected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)" Claim: Seventy-five percent of the young adults in this country are not mentally or physically fit to serve.
Solution:
Bing West said 75 percent of young adults in the United States were physically or mentally unfit to serve in the military. The Defense Department and a non-governmental organization have both done research that support his claim. We find the statement True. (Comment on this ruling on providencejournal.com. If you have a claim you'd like us to check, send it to [emailprotected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)