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: Western tourists kiss during sunset near Kuta beach on the Indonesian resort island of Bali in this May 28, 2005 file photo. REUTERS/Darren Whiteside German drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim failed to convince an expert panel that its pill increased sexual desire enough to win approval. "The efficacy was not sufficiently robust to justify the risks," said Dr. Julia Johnson, the panel's chairwoman and head of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Women reported depression, fainting, fatigue and other problems in company studies of the drug known chemically as flibanserin. The once-a-day pill, taken at bedtime, is the latest attempt to find a female counterpart to Pfizer Inc's Viagra, the blockbuster blue pill for men. Drugmakers have been searching for a medicine to improve women's sex lives since Viagra successfully debuted 12 years ago. The market for a "pink Viagra" could stretch into the billions of dollars. But some doctors and advocates worry that pharmaceutical companies are playing on women's insecurities to convince them they need a pill to improve their sex lives. "Low sexual desire is not a disease," said Leonore Tiefer, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York University, reading to the advisers from a petition opposing approval of flibanserin. The Food and Drug Administration will make the final decision on whether to approve the pill and usually follows the advice of its advisory panels. Privately held Boehringer wants clearance to sell its pill by prescription for premenopausal women with a persistent, bothersome and unexplained lack of sex drive. "Women deserve the option to choose a safe and effective pharmacological therapy for this distressing condition," said Dr. Anita Clayton, a Boehringer consultant and psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia. The drug, originally developed as an antidepressant, is believed to act on brain chemicals thought to play a role in sexual response, the company said. But the advisory committee of seven women and four men voted 11-0 that the drug's risks and benefits were unacceptable and 10-1 that effectiveness data was lacking. FDA reviewers, speaking before the panel voted, said flibanserin failed to increase sexual desire as measured by women's daily diary entries in two company studies. Boehringer said another analysis, based on a survey of women's responses, showed a jump in sex drive and lower distress levels with the drug. Women also reported slightly more satisfying sexual experiences an average of 4.5 per month compared with 2.8 before taking the medicine. For placebo patients, the rate rose to 3.7 during the six-month studies. Nearly 15 percent of women stopped taking flibanserin before the study ended due to possible side effects. Boehringer said most of the reported problems were mild. Panel members, however, said they were worried women would take the drug for months or years with unknown risks. "Long-term use needs to be better evaluated," said Dr. Kathleen Hoeger, a panelist and associate professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center. The drug's proposed brand name is Girosa. It is not yet approved anywhere in the world. "We are disappointed with the advisory committee's recommendations and will work with the FDA to address questions raised," Dr. Christopher Corsico, Boehringer's U.S. medical director, said in a statement. While the committee voted against the drug, members encouraged Boehringer and others to continue pursuing sex medications for women. "Indeed this is a significant need for women, and finding a medicine that will benefit women is critical," Johnson said. Drugmakers have tested various ways to boost female libido, but women's sex lives have proved difficult to target with medication. Male impotence pills including Viagra work by widening blood vessels to increase the blood flow needed for an erection. Pfizer dropped tests of Viagra in females in 2004 after studies failed to show it helped women. That same year, an FDA advisory panel voted in 2004 against recommending approval for a testosterone patch made by Procter & Gamble Co, citing a lack of evidence for long-term safety. The patch was approved in Europe and has been sold to Warner Chilcott. Another U.S. drugmaker, BioSante, is developing a testosterone skin gel to treat a decline in libido in menopausal women. The company estimates the U.S. market for treating female sexual dysfunction tops $2 billion annually. Claim: Female sex pill flops with U.S. advisers.
Solution: A pink sex pill offered little help to women and came with unacceptable risks, U.S. government advisers agreed on Friday, another setback in the search for a drug to boost female libido.