Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: "NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia recently unveiled a video that uses a montage of numbers to criticize Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell's stance on funding for sex education programs. Among the claims: ""$400,000 -- approximate cost to Virginians to fund ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. $2.5 million -- federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs Virginia lost due to McDonnell's political agenda."" Are NARAL's numbers and claims correct? We asked Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, for sources of the information. Let's start with the statement that abstinence-only education costs the state $400,000. Keene said that's a reference to match money Virginia provided to receive a federal grant for abstinence-only sex education. The payment allows Virginia to participate in the Title V Abstinence Education Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program promotes abstinence until marriage to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Last September, HHS announced Virginia would receive an $889,973 grant for abstinence education for fiscal 2010. States have until Sept. 30, 2012, to spend the money. The federal cash pays for 57 percent of the cost of abstinence programs approved by HHS. Participating states are required to provide the remaining 43 percent of cost. The match money can come from a variety of sources including from state coffers, foundation dollars and in-kind donations. Virginia was required to come up with about $670,000 to match the grant. Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the state is paying $382,688 towards the match. The rest is coming from in-kind contributions and community organizations awarded contracts to implement the sexual abstinence programs. So NARAL is near the bull's-eye in claiming Virginia is paying an ""approximate"" $400,000 for abstinence-until marriage programs. Caldwell noted that the state received federal abstinence education funding under previous governors going back to the 1990s. But in 2007, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine cut the state's funding for abstinence-only education. McDonnell reversed that decision last year. At the same time, McDonnell chose not to seek money from another federal grant program that teaches students about contraception in addition to abstinence -- the Personal Responsibility Education Program. Unlike the federal abstinence-only money, the comprehensive sex education grant requires no match. McDonnell's refusal to participate drew criticism from NARAL and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia. That brings us to the second part of NARAL's claim, that Virginia lost $2.5 million in federal money for comprehensive sex education under McDonnell. As a source, NARAL cited an HHS 49-page announcement of the PREP grant, which was created under the 2010 health care reform law. The HHS synopsis shows Virginia was estimated to receive a total of $2,593,487 during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. That's close to NARAL's number. But NARAL is greatly understating its case. States that didn't apply for the grant in fiscal 2010 and 2011 are not eligible to seek funding for the 2012-2014 fiscal years. So Virginia potentially missed out on much more than $2.6 million. Estimates for 2012-2014 allotments are not available, said Kenneth Wolfe, an HHS spokesman. Let's recap: A video by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said that abstinence-only programs pursued under McDonnell have cost the state about $400,000. Meanwhile, the group says the state missed out on about $2.5 million in federal funding for comprehensive sex education. It's the state spent about $400,000 for a federal abstinence-only grant. And it's that the McDonnell administration did not apply for a comprehensive sex education grant that would have sent almost $2.6 million to Virginia during fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Because Virginia is now ineligible to apply for the comprehensive grant through 2014, the state will wind up declining a much greater amount of money than NARAL claimed. We won't penalize NARAL for understating its case. Its statement is ." Claim: "Virginia spends $400,000 on abstinence programs while losing $2.5 million in federal funds due to Gov. Bob McDonnell's ""political agenda."
Solution:
NARAL says McDonnell's agenda costs state federal sex ed money