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: Hanan al-Hroub, a Palestinian teacher scheduled to speak at a Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting dinner event on 20 September 2016, drew criticism from Republicans because her husband, Omar al-Hroub, is a Palestinian official who served 10 years in an Israeli prison for supplying chemicals used in a deadly bombing attack in Hebron that killed six Israelis in 1980 especially given the close proximity (in both time and distance) of the speaking engagement to recent bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey. For example, Raj Shah, deputy communications director of the Republican National Committee, stated that: In the wake of this weekend's attacks, granting a platform to the spouse of a terrorist bomb-maker just miles away from where explosives were detonated days ago is an insult to the victims and makes a mockery of the Clinton Foundation. Donald Trump's campaign similarly issued a press release titled "Statement on Clinton Foundation Honoring Wife of Palestinian Terrorist," objecting to al-Hroub's appearance at the Clinton Global Initiative dinner: Today's report that the Clinton Foundation is feting the wife of a Palestinian man convicted of helping bomb innocent Israeli citizens is deeply disturbing, especially in the wake of this weekend's attacks. The decision to honor the wife of a terrorist by Hillary Clinton's foundation shows a complete lack of judgment and a callousness that should disqualify her from holding the presidency. Mrs. al-Hroub has become famous in her own right, independently of her husband, as described in a March 2016 Guardian profile of her achievements that delved into her experiences and her path to worldwide recognition: Hroub only began working as a teacher in 2007. After leaving school, she was forced to abandon her plans for further education when Palestinian universities closed during the first intifada, or uprising, between 1987 and 1993. Instead she got married and had five children. In 2000, when her youngest was established at school, Hroub resumed her education part-time at Al-Quds University. Within months, her husband, Omar, and two of her daughters were shot at by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint near Bethlehem. Omar was injured in the shoulder and the girls were traumatised. "This incident changed my life. We were in shock. My children were suffering, and the teachers were not trained to deal with trauma. At that point I decided to commit my life to teaching." She vehemently rejects Israeli claims that Palestinian schools incite children against Israel. "My message to those who say that is that all children should be protected from violence. I had a very hard childhood, and I don't want these children to experience the same. Once a cycle of violence is created, it's very hard to break." Prior to the Clinton Foundation-related controversy, the Associated Press reported on a similar issue surrounding Mrs. al-Hroub's March 2016 receipt of a global award for excellence in education: The U.K.-based foundation that awarded a Palestinian schoolteacher a $1 million prize for preaching nonviolence is sticking by its choice following revelations that the woman's husband participated in an attack that killed at least six Israelis three decades ago. The Varkey Foundation awarded Hanan al-Hroub its Global Teacher Prize. In its selection, it cited her slogan "No to Violence" and her efforts in protecting Palestinian schoolchildren from the effects of living in a conflict zone. She had developed a book called "We Play and Learn" focusing on the importance of playing, trust, respect, honesty and literacy. However, her husband, Omar, served time in Israeli prison, convicted as an accomplice in a bombing attack that killed six Israelis as they were walking home from sabbath prayers in the West Bank city of Hebron in 1980. According to an Associated Press account at the time, Omar al-Hroub was a chemist who provided chemicals needed for making the bombs In a statement, the Varkey Foundation said it does not look into the conduct of candidates' relatives and that the teacher was committed to nonviolence. "As a point of principle, we only look at the qualities, achievements and conduct of the candidates themselves As Hanan al-Hroub has said herself, she has spent her whole life dealing with the effects of violence on children at close hand and every day she works toward a world where children, wherever they come from, can grow up peacefully," it added. "She has spent her entire career teaching the principle of nonviolence. She believes in nonviolence in all its forms and in all circumstances." Qadura Faris, the director of the Palestinian prisoners' association, said that after serving a 10-year sentence, Omar al-Hroub accepted the 1993 Oslo interim peace accord with Israel, served as a deputy Cabinet minister in the Palestinian Authority and supports a two-state solution with Israel. He said al-Hroub remains a senior Palestinian official who is close to President Mahmoud Abbas and "believes in his peaceful approach." Al-Hroub's biography, as presented among those of the speakers at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)'s Annual Meeting from 19 to 21 September 2016, reads: Winner of the 2016 Global Teacher Prize, an initiative of the Varkey Foundation, Hanan Al Hroub grew up in the Palestinian refugee camp, Bethlehem, where she was regularly exposed to acts of violence. She went into primary education after her children were left deeply traumatized by a shooting incident they witnessed on their way home from school. Her experiences in meetings and consultations to discuss her children's behavior, development and academic performance in the years that followed led Al Hroub to try to help others who, having grown up in similar circumstances, require special handling at school. With so many troubled children in the region, Palestinian classrooms can be tense environments. Al Hroub embraces the slogan "No to Violence" and uses a specialized teaching approach she developed herself. Al Hroub has shared her perspective at conferences, meetings and teacher training seminars. Claim: Hanan al-Hroub, whose husband was jailed for providing chemicals used in making bombs that killed Israelis, was invited to speak at a Clinton Global Initiative dinner.
Solution:
Hanan al-Hroub was one of several dozen people invited to speak during the Clinton Global Initiative's Annual Meeting; she was not singled out to be "honored" or "feted" by that event.