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: "Fox started its wall-to-wall coverage of Super Bowl XLVIII on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace interviewing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell live from MetLife Stadium. Goodell talked about the weather, and how it appears conditions will be fine for the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks. He addressed a proposal to eliminate extra points, saying they're almost automatic (as we previously reported, they are). And he discussed the health of NFL players amid concern that the sport is too violent. Goodell offered a defense that we hadn't heard before. ""Our players are living, on average, longer than the average male,"" Goodell said. After serious talk about concussions in the NFL and some prominent suicides in the sport, we wondered about Goodell's claim. It's accurate, it turns out, but requires some additional explanation. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a governmentresearch agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the mortality rates of former NFL football players in a report released in 2012. The study included nearly all NFL players who played in the league for five or more years from 1959 to 1988 -- a pool of 3,439 men. Researchers said based on current mortality rates, they expected 625 players to be deceased. But by the end of 2007, only 334 were. ""We found the players in our study had a much lower rate of death overall compared to men in the general population,"" researchers wrote to the NFL players in a March 2012 letter. ""This means that, on average, NFL players are actually living longer than men in the general population."" The former NFL players also had lower rates of heart disease and cancer compared to average males, the report found. There are a few important caveats to point out. NFL players aren't like your average male in a number of ways. They are professional athletes, many of whom might be wealthy, and they are likely tohave access to quality health care. The report also raised red flags. Researchers found that men who were considered obese, those with a Body Mass Index of 30 or more when they played, had twice the risk of death from heart disease than other players. African-American players also had a higher heart disease risk than Caucasian players, the report found. Another important note: Because the study excludes modern-day players, it fails to account for the changing physique of today's football player. Of the 3,439 men in the NIOSH study, only 1 percent had a Body Mass Index of 35 or more when they played, and 33 percent had a Body Mass Index between 30 and 35. Today's NFL players are much bigger. To create an example, we looked at the current 53-man roster of the Denver Broncos and calculated each player's Body Mass Index using a calculator from the National Institutes of Health. Of 53 Broncos players, 13 have a Body Index above 35 (24.5 percent) and another 14 have a Body Mass Index between 30 and 35 (26.4 percent). That's an important distinction that may affect the results of future studies. Our ruling Goodell said that NFL ""players are living, on average, longer than the average male."" His claim is backed up by a government study that examined former NFL players who played from 1959 to 1988. But the study, which was released in 2012, did conclude that bigger players had an increased risk of dying from heart disease and did not evaluate more modern-day players. Modern-day players are bigger." Claim: "NFL ""players are living, on average, longer than the average male."
Solution: "Goodell said that NFL ""players are living, on average, longer than the average male."" His claim is backed up by a government study that examined former NFL players who played from 1959 to 1988. But the study, which was released in 2012, did conclude that bigger players had an increased risk of dying from heart disease and did not evaluate more modern-day players. Modern-day players are bigger."