Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Reason: 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 instance: George Luber, who ran the climate and health program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is an expert on the health impacts of climate change including risks to hospitals and public health infrastructure and of diseases borne by mosquitoes and ticks as they increasingly move into northern regions as temperatures rise. Luber has been a contributor to U.S. government reports including the National Climate Assessment, which last year warned that climate change could cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars. The administration of President Donald Trump, who rejects mainstream climate science, has a policy of rolling back regulations limiting emissions scientists link to climate change and has ordered cuts to climate science advisory panels. Luber's office of about 18 people was rolled into a bigger asthma program, which initially was set to include the word climate in its title, but was ultimately named asthma and community health. Ken Archer, a deputy of the climate office, was moved into unrelated work. The CDC offered Luber the top job at the merged program, but he attracted attention for complaining that the combination of the offices would result in an illegal blending of $10 million the U.S. Congress had set aside specifically for climate work. The CDC then filed papers charging Luber with misconduct including that he had failed to renew ethics clearance paperwork five years earlier, and that he wrote a book in 2013 without agency authorization, moves his lawyers said were retaliation for complaining. Although those were the first charges against Luber, who has worked at CDC for 16 years, the agency stripped him of his badge and keys. He now works from home reviewing CDC science papers unrelated to climate, must be accompanied by an armed guard to visit his old office and is prohibited from contacting former colleagues who did climate work, his lawyers said. "As our climate spins out of control, bureaucrats eager to please the Trump administration have worked feverishly to destroy the reputations of climate scientists who stand in its way," said Kevin Bell, a lawyer for Luber at the watchdog group the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, who is filing the complaint. The CDC does not comment on personnel matters, a spokeswoman said. She added that the combined office allows climate, asthma and air pollution experts to work on a range of shared health impacts. Last month Luber was served with CDC papers that propose to suspend him from the agency for 120 days without pay, which renewed an earlier proposal that the agency later retracted after media reports about Luber's situation. Luber hopes the whistleblower complaint will result in a ruling that will allow him to return to climate work at the CDC, his lawyers said. Bell added that the complaint seeks to restore Luber's reputation as a scientist, which is at risk from the agency's retaliatory actions. The Office of Special Counsel does not have independent investigatory powers on whistleblower cases but can order agencies to undertake investigations and disclose details of them.
Student:
U.S. scientist to file whistleblower complaint after agency halts his climate work.