Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
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
Output: 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.
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 case for you: Paragraph: "There are no financial costs associated with fasting one day per month. The article generally presents data well: While at the top it uses the phrase ""40 percent less likely to be diagnosed with heart disease,"" later in the text it explains that 67 percent of the non-fasters were diagnosed, compard to 59 percent of fasters. Providing both measures is useful. The article also lays out the study's methodology in considerable detail. The article cites the two important safety issues regarding fasting: That it can be dangerous for diabetics, and that it can depress metabolism and possibly make weight gain more likely. It should also have said that anyone who wants to fast should consult their doctor first. While the article reports that the study was presented at an American Heart Association meeting, it did not explain that this means the data has not been peer-reviewed or published and as such carries less credibility until (or if) it is published in such a journal. The article also failed to point out an observational study of self-reported behavior is a less powerful type of evidence than a prospective clinical trial. The risk in this study of ""Healthy user bias"" the fact that people who choose to fast may have healthy characteristics that others do not should have been emphasized. The article also permits the researchers to overinterpret some data. It quotes the researchers as saying the results apply to non-Mormons too. But only 8 percent of the survey group of 515 or 41 people were not Mormons. Conclusions of disease prevalence based on such a small sample size are premature. The article does not exaggerate the consequences or prevalence of heart disease. This article was based on a presentation at a medical meeting. It included interviews from two sources: The study's author, and an independent expert on the subject of diet and heart disease. The article states that quitting smoking also reduces heart disease risk. But it fails to indicate that a more common approach to reducing heart risk is controlling what and how much you eat rather than when. It would have been useful to know how much benefit this group of fasters saw compared to a similar group that used more common dietary measures to reduce heart risk. The article also fails to mention other common and effective ways to reduce heart risk, such as controlling high blood pressure and lipids, taking aspirin, etc. The activity studied, refraining from food and drink one day per month, is available to anyone. The article correctly implies that little research has been done on the cardiac benefits of once-a-month daily fasting. There is no evidence the article is based on a press release." Claim: Study: Monthly fasting may help heart
Output:
This report on findings about heart disease in a mostly Mormon population of once-a-month fasters is solidly done. It presents data fairly and quotes one independent source. It also includes the essential caveats that the study is "far from proof" that fasting cuts heart disease risk, that monthly fasting may be a marker for personal self-discipline generally, and that fasting doesn't necessarily lead to weight loss. The article's major shortcoming is that it is based on a fairly low quality of data source subject to biasan unpublished presentation of information gathered from self-reports of healthy people about lifestyle behaviors linked to their religious beliefs. The question here is not with the reporter's execution of the story, but whether it should have been published at all. Despite its prominent acknowledgment of caveats, the story's length and very existence invite the inference that fasting is an effective method to reduce heart disease risk. The researchers themselves admit their study can in no way responsibly answer that questionthat their study at best raises questions that may justify further study. When making assignments, editors would be wise to ask the questions: Will this report invite an inference about a recommended change in personal health behavior? If so, does the data justify this inference? In this case, the answer to the former is yes. The answer to the latter is no. Viewed from this perspective, an argument can be made that the story should not have been published. (An abstract of the presentation appears as a meeting supplement to the journal Circulation.)