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: PGE and Orsted, the world's biggest developer of offshore wind, said last month they had started discussions over the sale. "We are hoping to finalize the negotiations - meaning signing the basic terms - by the end of this year," the chief executive of state-run PGE's offshore wind subsidiary Monika Morawiecka told Reuters on Tuesday. The projects, which have a total capacity of up to 2.5 gigawatts (GW), are key to developing the offshore wind sector in otherwise coal-reliant Poland. International firms including Orsted, oil and gas company Equinor and Germany's RWE are looking to Poland as the next big growth market for harnessing wind at sea. "Poland is going to be one of the largest offshore wind markets," Orsted's Chief Executive of offshore wind Martin Neubert told Reuters. For coal-reliant Poland, offshore wind, together with other renewables, is seen as an opportunity to put the energy industry on a greener path. "We do struggle with our conventional (coal) assets and we see that in the future this part of PGE's business is going to suffer, so we need to balance it with, for example, offshore wind," said Morawiecka. She added that she was confident with regards to securing financing for the two projects and that the 1 GW Baltica 3 project would be ready to start construction by 2023 or 2024. The Polish government has set a target of generating at least 10 GW of offshore wind power by 2040 compared to zero today, and is finalizing the legal framework to support this. "Poland has a government which a lot of people thought until recently was not very interested in renewables," the CEO of industry group WindEurope Giles Dickson told Reuters. Thousands of Polish workers are already employed in producing goods for the offshore wind industry supply chain, but so far these have only been exported. "I think there is a profound interest in creating a strong home market," said Orsted's Neubert. Claim: HPV test beats Pap for cervical cancer screening
Answer:
Polish energy group PGE is close to signing a deal to sell 50% stakes in two planned offshore wind projects in the Baltic Sea to Denmark's Orsted, the companies said on Tuesday.