Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
One example: "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."
Solution is here: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

Now, solve this: Parliament's influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said it was "surprised and concerned" to discover that information on methods and results of clinical trials of such prescribed drugs "is routinely withheld", and said there was a "lack of consensus over how well Tamiflu ... actually works". "The case for stockpiling antiviral medicines at the current level is based on judgment rather than on evidence of their effectiveness during an influenza pandemic," said Richard Bacon, a leading member of the committee. He added that as well as spending more than 420 million pounds on stockpiling Tamiflu, an antiviral medicine, the Department of Health was forced to write off 74 million pounds of that as a result of poor record-keeping by the National Health Service. "Before spending money in future to maintain the stockpile the (health) department needs to review what level of coverage is appropriate," he said. Tamiflu has been approved by regulators worldwide and is stockpiled by many governments in case of a global flu outbreak. Sales of the drug hit close to $3 billion in 2009, due to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, although they have since declined. But some researchers claim there is little evidence Tamiflu works and have lobbied since 2009 for Swiss drugmaker Roche to hand over all its data from clinical trials of the medicine. After a lengthy fight, Roche agreed last year that it would hand over the data to outside researchers at the Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that reviews trial data to assess the value of drugs. The PAC said it was "extremely concerning that there has been a five-year delay and that there continues to be a lack of clarity" over whether medicines regulators and safety authorities had access to full trial results. Beyond the Tamiflu situation, the committee said it was concerned that information on methods and results of clinical trials is routinely and legally withheld. "This longstanding regulatory and cultural failure impacts on all of medicine, and undermines the ability of clinicians, researchers and patients to make informed decisions about which treatment is best," it said in its report. The PAC report forms part of a wider debate about access to data from clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry to test the efficacy of and win marketing approval for new drugs. Critics say drugmakers routinely hide or bury trial data which is unfavorable. Tracey Brown, director of a group called Sense About Science, which a year ago launched AllTrials - a campaign fighting for all data from all trials of all prescribed drugs to be made available - said the PAC report "adds to the clamor of voices" calling for more transparency in the drug industry. "There is no excuse for not publishing results, but a huge public benefit to having a complete picture of what was found in trials conducted on treatments currently available to patients," she said. ($1 = 0.6038 British pounds)
Solution:
UK lawmakers criticize govt's stockpiling of Roche drug Tamiflu.