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
Example 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.
Example 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: The Supreme Judicial Court said MIT cannot be blamed for the death of 25-year-old Han Nguyen, who jumped from the top of a campus building minutes after a professor confronted him about an offensive email. But it found that schools can be liable if they fail to act after they become aware that a student has attempted suicide while enrolled, or shortly before entering, or learn that the student had threatened to commit suicide. Gary Pavela, a consultant on law and policy issues in higher education, said he's unaware of another state appellate court that has explicitly found that universities have a duty to prevent suicide in limited cases and defines those circumstances. "This will be very newsworthy to colleges around the country," said Pavela, who has written a book about the legal questions surrounding student suicides. Jeffrey Beeler, an attorney for Nguyen's estate, said they were disappointed the court sided with MIT, but believe its ruling will nonetheless "save student lives going forward." An MIT spokeswoman said in a statement that Nguyen's death was a tragedy and students' well-being is of "paramount importance to the school." Spokeswoman Kimberly Allen said the school already offers a "robust network" of services for students and "continually considers ways to enhance those resources." The court noted that Nguyen never told anyone at MIT that he planned to kill himself or tried to kill himself while enrolled at the school. Furthermore, he was living off campus instead of a dormitory under "daily observation," the court said. But the judges said schools must take "reasonable measures" to help students they know have attempted suicide while at the school or have threatened to kill themselves. That would include initiating a suicide prevention protocol, getting the student in the care of a medical professional, or contacting police, fire or emergency medical personnel. "It requires the school to really have a lot of information that the suicide is likely and the reasonable measures that the school needs to take are not extremely onerous," said Naomi Shatz, an attorney who's not involved in the case. A group of 18 colleges and universities including Harvard University and Boston College told the court that holding MIT responsible for Nguyen's death would have far-reaching consequences by causing officials with no medical expertise to overreact to concerns out of fear of liability. Nguyen's professors shared concerns about his mental health in the months leading up to his death, and one encouraged his colleagues to pass him or they might have "blood on their hands." In a telephone call 11 minutes before he killed himself, a professor "read him the riot act" over an email Nguyen sent to another MIT official that they believed was inappropriate, court records said. The family said that the school should have known that "mishandling this fragile student" would result in his suicide. But MIT said the school wasn't aware of the severity of his condition, noting that he was treated by outside professionals and refused on-campus resources. None of the professionals who treated Nguyen while he was at MIT believed he was an imminent risk of killing himself, the school said. ___ Follow Alanna Durkin Richer at http://twitter.com/aedurkinricher . Read more of her work at http://bit.ly/2hIhzDb . Claim: Court says schools can be liable for suicides but clears MIT.
Solution: Schools can be held liable for student suicides in certain circumstances, Massachusetts' highest court said Monday in a ruling that also cleared the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of responsibility for the death of a graduate student who killed himself on campus in 2009.