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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: "A Republican group has launched a racy ad saying Colorado state Sen. Morgan Carroll, a Democratic congressional candidate, voted to allow welfare recipients to use public benefit cards at ATMs in strip clubs and marijuana dispensaries. The National Republican Congressional Committee's ad shows how down and dirty the race between Carroll and Republican incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman is getting in the final sprint to Election Day. They're fighting over suburban Denver's 6th Congressional District, one of the nation's most competitive swing districts. ""Career politicians waste lots of money. Morgan Carroll is one of the worst,"" the narrator says at the beginning of the ad, titled ""Clubs."" ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries,""the narrator continues as the video shifts from Carroll addressing the Legislature to her standing at a podium in front of a red neon silhouette of a nude female figure and the words ""STRIPPERS""and ""MORGAN CARROLL"" on a brick wall. There's a row of marijuana-filled jars beside the senator. ""It's enough to make you ask, 'What's Morgan Carroll thinking?' Welfare for lap dances? Morgan Carroll is careless with our money,""the ad concludes. We examined the claim that ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."" The facts are fairly straightforward. Carroll was among a dozen Democratic senators who voted against final passage of a 2015 bill to prohibit welfare recipients from using state-issued electronic benefit transfer (or EBT) cards to obtain cash from ATMs at pot shops and strip clubs. Low-income families use these debit cards to buy ""essential goods"" such as food and clothing and to help pay for utilities and rent. Senate Bill 65, which became law, expanded on existing state law prohibiting people from using the cards to withdraw ATM cash at liquor stores, casinos and gun shops. Federal law already required states to prevent people receiving public benefits from using EBT cards at liquor stores, gambling and adult entertainment venues. Colorado also has had trouble preventing people from withdrawing ATM cash totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos and liquor stores, according to Watchdog.org. State officials and lawmakers warned that Colorado would face financial sanctions for failing to comply with federal prohibitions against EBT card use at strip clubs. There were also concerns about a federal crackdown after several reports of people using the benefit cards at shops selling medical or recreational marijuana -- a drug that's legal under state law but illegal under federal law. ""We stand to lose a lot if we don't show we are trying"" to prevent the use of tax money for marijuana, Republican Sen. Vicki Marble, a primary sponsor of the bill, told theAssociated Press last year. ""The growers here put in a lot of time and effort. A raid would be absolutely devastating to our state."" Why did Carroll -- along with many other Democratic senators -- vote against the bill? ""The reason she voted against it was because of 'banking deserts,' where many poor people don't have"" bank ATMs in their neighborhoods, said Carroll campaign spokesman Drew Godinich. Removing their ability to get cash from ATMs at the many marijuana dispensaries that dot Colorado cities and towns hampers low-income families' ability to access money to purchase legitimate products elsewhere, he added. According to the Atlantic magazine, a March study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the increase of ""banking deserts"" found that ""lower-income communities and communities of color have historically and disproportionately limited access to mainstream banking services."" This makes it harder for people in these communities to manage their finances and build wealth, the study said. Democratic lawmakers had repeatedlydefeated similar legislation, arguing that improper ATM withdrawals at strip clubs,liquor stores, casinos represent a tiny fraction of the total use of cash-assistance cards, the Denver Post reported. Critics also note that the 2015 law doesn't prevent someone on welfare from using their EBT card to make a withdrawal at a supermarket ATM and then go spend the cash at a pot shop or a strip club. Our ruling NRCC says, ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."" There's slightly more to this than the NRCC lets on: Carroll voted, unsuccessfully, to allowwelfare recipients to continue withdrawingmoney from ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries. Carroll's spokesman said the senator voted against the bill thatprohibited people from using public benefit cards for cash withdrawals at strip clubs and marijuana dispensaries because she was concerned about the impact on residents of poor neighborhoods where there are few -- if any -- banking services. State officials and lawmakers warned that Colorado could face financial sanctions for failing to comply with federal prohibitions against the use of benefit cards at adult entertainment venues. With that additional information in mind, werate the claim . Claim: "National Republican Congressional Committee Says Colorado congressional candidate Morgan Carroll ""voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."
A:
"NRCC says, ""Carroll voted to allow welfare recipients to use your tax dollars at ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries."" There's slightly more to this than the NRCC lets on: Carroll voted, unsuccessfully, to allowwelfare recipients to continue withdrawingmoney from ATMs at strip clubs and pot dispensaries. Carroll's spokesman said the senator voted against the bill thatprohibited people from using public benefit cards for cash withdrawals at strip clubs and marijuana dispensaries because she was concerned about the impact on residents of poor neighborhoods where there are few -- if any -- banking services. State officials and lawmakers warned that Colorado could face financial sanctions for failing to comply with federal prohibitions against the use of benefit cards at adult entertainment venues. With that additional information in mind.