Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: Researchers with the UofA Cooperative Extension are moving forward with a multiyear study of the environment and growing practices in the "winter vegetable capital," the university announced last week. They will be partnering with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, state agriculture officials and local growers. "It's really rare to see a project like this, to see all three entities working together to solve a problem," Channah Rock, an environmental science professor with the UofA Cooperative Extension, told The Associated Press. Seven to 10 scientists will be based in Yuma and collect data year-round. They will gather samples of water, sediment and wildlife feces, Rock said. The study is expected to last one to three years. One of the goals is to come back with recommendations for growers or anyone along the production chain, and perhaps inform future practices, Rock said. "The goal is to look at trends over time to tell us a better story about what is and isn't going on in the environment," she said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the spring 2018 outbreak was responsible for five deaths and made 200 others ill. Health officials ultimately traced the romaine lettuce back to Yuma. FDA investigators said water samples from an irrigation canal in eastern Yuma County tested positive for the same genetic type of E. coli. And a cattle feedlot in the area was identified as a potential source of harmful bacteria. However, nothing definitive turned up at 22 farm fields, and subsequent testing didn't find the outbreak pathogen again in the canal. The FDA and CDC's assessments were only a snapshot of a few months, Rock said. The scientists hope with more time, they can shed light on how the water became contaminated to begin with. Produce growers in Arizona and California have since adopted new standards based on the information gleaned from the FDA, including additional water quality testing, increased attention to weather and longer distances from feedlot operations. Claim: UofA scientists to study Yuma lettuce outbreak.
Answer:
University of Arizona scientists are hoping to find more answers about what caused a romaine lettuce outbreak that sickened dozens and put the spotlight on Yuma farmers last year.