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: This is a sentence spoken by Trump, not a piece of modernist stream-of-consciousness pastiche. pic.twitter.com/vfhdKzg9Uy Stig Abell (@StigAbell) August 9, 2016 On 19 July 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appeared at Sun City's Magnolia Hall in South Carolina to deliver a noontime speech. The event was an otherwise unremarkable campaign stop, save for one portion of Trump's speech (transcribed below) in which he apparently started out attempting to criticize the nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran but veered into a minute-and-a-half long sentence that spanned his uncle's academic qualifications, his own education, Democrats' denying Republicans' credentials, the power of nuclear technology, the number of American prisoners freed by Iran in conjunction with the nuclear deal, and the adeptness of "Persian" negotiators (particularly women), before circling back to how the Iranians "killed us" in the nuclear deal: "Look, having nuclear my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world it's true! but when you're a conservative Republican they try oh, do they do a number that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners now it used to be three, now it's four but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible." The one thing that puzzles us the most about this sprawling statement is this: Donald Trump's late uncle, Dr. John Trump, was indeed a renowned professor at MIT, and among his many notable contributions to science were developing methods for treating cancer through radiation and studying how to radiate deep tumors without harming nearby healthy tissue. But what did he reveal to his nephew about "nuclear" 35 years ago that it would have been surprising for anyone to think of? Claim: A tweet reproduces a 90-second long sentence from a Donald Trump speech.
Solution:
"My uncle used to tell me about nuclear before nuclear was nuclear" and "He would tell me, 'There are things that are happening that could be potentially so bad for the world in terms of weaponry,'" Donald Trump has claimed, even though the U.S. had already developed and used nuclear weapons before he was born (1946). Could anyone have really been unaware or doubtful that "nuclear is powerful" in the 1980s, when Dr. Trump supposedly informed his nephew of that fact?