You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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
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.
Why? 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.

New input: Paragraph: The figures released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday raised concern among health officials who fear e-cigarettes will create a new generation of nicotine addicts who may eventually smoke conventional cigarettes. Cigarette smoking fell more than 25 percent over the same period. E-cigarette proponents said the data could indicate e-cigarettes are diverting young people away from conventional cigarettes, a view rejected by tobacco control advocates. [ID: nL2N0XD1UH] The Food and Drug Administration regulates cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. It proposed extending its authority to e-cigarettes and hookah, among other products, nearly a year ago. FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum said on Friday the agency is "moving forward expeditiously to finalize the rule." Its goal is to release it in June. But the potential for delay is considerable. The agency received more than 135,000 public comments on the proposal and by law must review them all. The rule must also be reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services and then by the White House's Office of Management and Budget, which analyzes the potential economic consequences of proposed regulations. "This puts real pressure on every level of the administration to get this done," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, referring to the CDC data. "It means business as usual won't solve this rapidly growing public health problem." OMB has not yet received the rule, according to its website. Once it does, it has 90 days to review it, though that can be extended. "There is always an opportunity for delay, but I think it will be much harder for the administration to exercise that opportunity now," said David Dobbins, chief operating officer at the anti-tobacco group Legacy. "It's up to the White House and HHS to make sure this regulation gets out as quickly as possible." The proposed rule would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18 and require FDA approval of new products. Public health advocates have also been pushing for a ban on flavored products, television advertising and internet sales, which they say attract children. The agency has said the rule would be the foundational first step in a range of potential future regulations. In the meantime, some states are moving to impose restrictions of their own. In February, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer re-introduced proposed legislation that would allow the Federal Trade Commission to determine what constitutes marketing to children and would allow the FTC to work with states' attorneys general to enforce bans. At least 43 states already have laws that restrict sales of e-cigarettes to minors and some are working to incorporate e-cigarettes into existing clean air acts that prohibit smoking in public places. "As long as the federal government doesn't take uniform action, I think we will see action on a local level," Dobbins said. "People can differ about the appropriateness of e-cigarettes for adults but I don't think anyone disagrees on the appropriateness of giving them to children." Claim: Youth e-cigarette data prompts new calls to speed regulation.
Solution:
Public health advocates are stepping up pressure on the U.S. government to quickly regulate and restrict access to e-cigarettes after new data showed use of the products tripled among high school and middle school children last year.