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: "One government program putting food on the table for the needy is the Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program, most often known by the acronym WIC. The program targets low-income, nutritionally at-risk groups -- mostly pregnant women, new moms, babies and children up to age 5. Participants receive vouchers to buy qualifying healthy foods -- such as fruit, vegetables, peanut butter and milk. (No lobster allowed under WIC, unlike the food stamp program. See food stamps Politifact, March 21.) As its name suggests, the WIC program, which is 100 percent federally funded, is meant to supplement what's already in the pantry. The average WIC participant received $45.47 worth of groceries a month in 2013, probably not enough on its own to keep body and soul together. During the recent General Assembly session, when GOP lawmakers were pushing through a bill to require drug tests of some food stamp recipients, a reader asked for a fact check on WIC. He jogged our memory last week after seeing a blog from the state Department of Public Health, the agency that administers the program. The post stated: ""Georgia has the nation's fifth largest Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Supplemental Nutrition program, serving more than 270,000 mothers, babies and children every day."" ""Could this be true?"" the reader asked. ""Dare I ask what that's costing us?"" We reached out to Nancy Nydam, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Health. Based on costs, Georgia's program ranked fifth among the 50 states, the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia for four years, from 2009 to 2012, Nydam said. But that's no longer the case. New data show that the Georgia program dropped to seventh in the rankings for 2013, she said. (The blogger was going on 2013 projections, not actual data for the year, Nydam said.) The new data, provided by the Department of Public Health, show that, for 2013, Georgia ranked seventh behind: California, $1,095,910,535; Texas, $482,192,108; New York, $445,559,283; Florida, $354,990,320; Puerto Rico, $242,747,993; and Illinois, $215,142,474. Georgia spent about $215.1 million for food and other services for 289,527 WIC recipients, including nutrition and breast-feeding education, and referrals for health and social services, Nydam said. Enrollment in the program was down 14,340 from 2012. It peaked in 2009, as the economy was crumbling, at 323,353, state data show. Costs for the Georgia program fell by more than $59 million, from $274.5 million in 2012, due to a couple of factors, Nydam said. Besides having fewer women and children on the rolls, Georgia has been working with manufacturers to lower the program's costs for food. As a result, state spending on food for program participants was reduced from $225 million in 2011 to $204 million in 2012 and to $157 million for 2013, state data show. The feds also have pushed states to do more to combat fraud. After it became a stand-alone agency, the Department of Public Health created an inspector general's office to investigate fraud in the WIC program and developed and issued new WIC vouchers, complete with a foil seal and watermark designed to deter counterfeiting, Nydam said. The inspector general's office has prosecuted 16 people for WIC vendor fraud, terminated 183 vendors and recouped $17 million as restitution. Our conclusion: The blog statement said Georgia ranks fifth among the states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories based on the cost of its WIC program. That was true for four years, through 2012. Once Politifact inquired, state officials said there was new data showing the state dropped to seventh for 2013." Claim: Georgia has the nation's fifth largest Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Supplemental Nutrition program, serving more than 270,000 mothers, babies and children every day.
Solution:
Georgia's WIC program ranked 7th largest