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: Posthumous sperm donation is technically feasible and morally acceptable, the specialists said in a review published in the Journal of Medical Ethics on Tuesday. They argue it should be seen like organ and other tissue donations as a way of relieving the suffering of others. While infertility is not life-threatening, said Nathan Hodson of Britain's Leicester University and Joshua Parker of Britain's Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester, it causes great suffering and could be said to be a form of illness. "If it is morally acceptable that individuals can donate their tissues to relieve the suffering of others in 'life enhancing transplants' for diseases ... we see no reason why this cannot be extended to other forms of suffering like infertility, which may or may not also be considered a disease," they said. Such a move would raise questions about consent and family permissions for posthumous donations, Parker and Hodson said, and there would also be concerns about anonymity of the donor. Britain has a shortage of donor sperm, while demand is high, and increasing, the experts said. They cited government data showing that an estimated 4,000 samples are imported to Britain each year from the United States, and 3,000 from Denmark, as well as more from other European Union countries. Sperm can be collected after death either through electrical stimulation of the prostate gland or with surgery. It can then be frozen and stored until required. Parker and Hodson cited studies showing that sperm harvested from dead men can result in healthy pregnancies and children with normal health and development, even when the sperm is retrieved 48 hours after death. Other medical experts said the analysis raised issues that need to be resolved. "Further discussion is needed to understand whether people who need to use donor sperm would even want to use the sperm of a deceased donor," said Sarah Norcross, director of the Progress Educational Trust. "It is also vital to seek the opinions of donor-conceived people about what they think the impact would be of never being able to meet the donor."
Solution:
Posthumous sperm donation should be allowed, say UK experts.