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

Problem: Feinberg has been instructed to meet with lawyers for Bayer and plaintiffs within the next 14 days, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco said during a court hearing on Wednesday. Chhabria, who oversees some 900 federal Roundup lawsuits, on April 11 ordered the parties to start confidential mediation. He appointed Feinberg after the parties failed to agree on a mediator. Feinberg is well known for having facilitated dispute resolutions in high-stakes litigations in the past. He led mediation talks over the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, Volkswagen's diesel emissions scandal and General Motors ignition switch litigation. Chhabria on Wednesday also scheduled the next federal Roundup trial for February 2020. The case would mark the second bellwether, or test trial, to help determine the range of damages and define settlement options for federal cases. The judge also wants to prepare some 20 cases currently pending before him for trial and send them to other courts across the country. More than 13,400 plaintiffs nationwide allege Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that the company failed to warn about that risk. The majority of lawsuits are pending in state courts across the country. Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in a $63 billion deal last year, denies the allegations, saying studies and regulators have deemed glyphosate and Roundup safe for human use. The company in the past said it would comply with Chhabria's mediation order in good faith, while believing strongly in the "extensive body of reliable science supporting the safety of Roundup." Bayer has also said it would defend itself in all cases and await the appeals process underway for the three cases that have gone to trial and resulted in jury verdicts against it. A California jury on May 13 awarded $2 billion to a couple alleging Roundup caused their cancer. In March, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded $80 million to a California man after finding Roundup caused his cancer. That decision came after another California jury in August 2018 awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper in the first U.S. Roundup trial. That award was later reduced to $78 million.
Solution:
U.S. judge appoints Ken Feinberg mediator for Bayer Roundup settlement talks.