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.
One 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 is here: 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.

Now, solve this: E-cigarettes have been marketed as tools to help smokers quit, but rising use among youth in the United States and a spate of severe lung illnesses tied to the devices have triggered a backlash and heightened regulatory scrutiny. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has in the past advised consumers to avoid the devices, but the latest recommendation focused on THC products follows nationwide data that pointed to a large number of cases related to the use of the high-inducing component of marijuana. The CDC and state health officials, along with other health agencies, are investigating 805 confirmed and probable cases and 12 deaths so far from a mysterious respiratory illness tied to vaping, as of the latest update on Thursday. According to the research published by CDC on Friday, 514 of the 805 patients knew about substances used in their vaping products, with nearly 77% using THC-containing vapes. However, this does not narrow the focus of the investigation as some users have also reported using e-cigarettes with just nicotine, CDC's principal deputy director Anne Schuchat told reporters on Friday. The data showed that 56.8% used nicotine in their vapes, while 16% used vapes containing just nicotine in the 30 days preceding their symptoms. "We do not know yet what exactly is making people sick, for example, whether particular solvents or adulterants are leading to lung injury, or whether cases stem from a single supplier or multiple ones," Schuchat said. Separate data from Wisconsin and Illinois showed that although no single brand name was reported by all patients, two-thirds of consumers reported using a prefilled THC cartridge under the brand name "Dank Vapes". A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month found that more than half of lung illness patients extensively interviewed in Wisconsin and Illinois reported having used the "Dank Vapes" brand.
Solution:
U.S. CDC recommends against using vapes with marijuana ingredient.