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.

Let me give you an example: 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
The answer to this example can be: 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.
Here is 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.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: In 1990, Congress passed and President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which extended federal civil rights protections to people with mental or physical impairments: The ADA is one of America's most comprehensive pieces of civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination and guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in the mainstream of American life to enjoy employment opportunities, to purchase goods and services, and to participate in State and local government programs and services. Modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the ADA is an "equal opportunity" law for people with disabilities. More than a quarter-century on, and despite further work to be done, the ADA hasso positivelyaffected howpeople with disabilities are treated and perceived in America that the notion that laws onceexisted to keep physically and cognitively challenged people indoors and out of sight seems scarcely believable. But it was the case and not so long ago. Beginning in the late 1800s, statutes known as "unsightly beggar ordinances," aka "ugly laws," were enacted in some American cities to rid public spacesof what Chicago Alderman James Peevey euphemistically referred to as"street obstructions": By street obstructions, Peevey didn't mean food carts, construction materials, roadblocks or potholes. He meant beggars, such as the ones described in the Tribune as "the one-legged individual who, with drooping eye and painfully lugubrious countenance, holds forth his hat for pennies" or "the fellows who yell 'ba-na-naas'" and "the woman with two sick children who was drawn through the carding-machine in a woolen mill, and who grinds 'Mollie Darling' incessantly on a hurdy-gurdy on a street corner." Following the example of San Francisco, which had pioneered the legislationin 1867, Peevey helped pass a law in 1881 imposing fines (or stints in the poorhouse) on all who were "diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object," yet dared beg, panhandle, or otherwise make nuisances ofthemselves in public. Among other cities, Omaha, Columbus, Cleveland, and Portland, Oregon followed suit, all passing ugly laws usingvirtuallyidenticallanguage. In a discussion of Susan M. Schweik's The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public (2009), reviewer Shannon Sommer encapsulates the social and economic developments leading up tothese measures: Schweik discusses in detail several factors which combined to create the perfect storm for the emergence of ugly law in America at this time. These include: the formation of Charity Organization Societies, the rise or eugenics and state institutions, an increasing focus on using urban planning to create beautiful cities, increasing immigration at a time when there were few restrictions placed on immigration, the large number of soldiers injured in the Civil War which had ended just a few years earlier, temperance and prohibition, and the increasing industrialization of society with resulting industrial-related injuries. Schweik notes that though the passage of new ugly laws ceased by the beginning of World War I and enforcement of existing statutes dwindled thereafter, theyremained on the books until well into the latter half of the 20th century: Schweik found that the last known arrest under an ugly law occurred in Omaha, NE in 1974 when a policeman wanted to arrest a homeless man but had no basis for arrest. After searching the city code and finding that Omaha's Ugly Law was still on the books he was able to take the man into custody on the basis that the man had "marks and scars on his body." Prosecutors refused to press charges in this case. Schweik recounts one prosecutor pointing out that "criminal prosecution under this law would require the impossible: courtroom proof "that someone is ugly." Claim: "During the 19th and 20th centuries, some U.S. cities enacted so-called ""ugly laws"" banning people deemed ""diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object or improper person"" from public spaces."
Answer:
That same year, 1974, saw the demise of ugly laws in America. The last city to repeal was Chicago. One of the alderman responsible for killingthe law, Paul T. Wigoda, denouncedit as "cruel and insensitive," and "a throwback to the Middle Ages." Ithad been in effect for 93 years.