Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
Explanation: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: Officials in energy-friendly Weld County say the law gives the county complete control over the location of new wells in unincorporated areas. That could challenge the state's attempts to tighten regulations. Just across the county line in Longmont, environmental activists are trying to use the same statute to revive the city's ban on hydraulic fracturing, which the courts threw out under the previous laws. Because fracking is standard practice in the area, the ban would essentially prohibit all drilling. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill into law on April 16. In addition to switching the state's top priority to public health and the environment, it gives cities and counties new powers to regulate the drilling locations. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is in the early stages of rewriting its rules to comply with the law referred to as Senate Bill 181 and several counties are looking at drafting their own regulations. It's too early to measure the impacts, but the industry is clearly concerned. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association invited Polis to speak Wednesday at a session titled "Can You Still Drill for Oil in a Blue State?" Polis told the audience that was a silly question. He said international markets and overseas instability have more impact on the industry than state regulations. "Energy is not inherently political, it's inherently economic," he said. Dan Haley, president of the Oil and Gas Association, asked Polis several times to respond to industry concerns about its standing in the state. The governor eventually replied he values industry jobs but added that they're part of a diverse state economy. Colorado ranks fifth in the nation for crude oil production and sixth in natural gas, and much of that is concentrated in Weld County northeast of Denver. Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, a fierce defender of the industry, argued hard against the new bill and led a short-lived campaign to overturn it after it became law. Now she maintains the bill, coupled with older statutes on local government powers, gives counties like hers the final word on land-use decisions that affect the industry in areas outside cities. "Basically what S.B. 181 said is the state no longer has land use authority," she said in an interview. Weld County established an oil and gas department and adopted its own rules, but Kirkmeyer said energy companies won't have free rein to drill wherever they want. The county rules are similar to ones the state had before the new law was passed, she said. The goal is to ensure a common-sense approach to regulating oil and gas companies, Kirkmeyer said. "We are willing to work with them for responsible energy development in our county," she said. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Stephen Fenberg, a sponsor of Senate Bill 181, disputed Kirkmeyer's interpretation of the law. The intent was to give both the state and local governments a say in regulating the surface impacts of oil and gas, and to allow cities and counties to enact stricter rules than the state's, but not more lenient ones, he said. "I would argue that the Weld County commissioners know this," he said, accusing them of "political theater." Polis said Wednesday that state officials are working on a written agreement with Weld County officials but offered no details. Environmental groups Colorado Rising and Our Longmont say the new law clears the way for Longmont and other local governments to ban oil and gas drilling. Longmont voters approved a fracking ban in 2012, but the Colorado Supreme Court overturned it in 2016, saying only the state could regulate the industry under the laws in force at the time. Senate Bill 181 "flips the script" on state and local control, said Democratic state Rep. Jonathan Singer of Longmont, who supports the ban. "The state does not take precedence over what local governments want to do when it comes to protecting our health and safety," he said. The two environmental groups asked the courts to restore the ban earlier this month. The case is pending. Fenberg said the law doesn't specifically allow or prohibit local drilling bans. But he said they could open a city or a county to damage claims from mineral rights owners who can't access their underground oil and gas reserves. If the goal is to protect public health and safety, strong local regulations are a better option than a ban, he said. ___ Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAP . Claim: Oil and gas defenders, critics test Colorado's new law.
Answer:
The petroleum industry's defenders and critics are testing the limits of a new Colorado law that flips the state's priorities from producing energy to protecting the public.