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.
One 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
Solution is here: 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.

Now, solve this: Paragraph: "Wisconsin's response to the coronavirus outbreak is under a microscope as cases surge and Republicans and Democrats continue to clash over what -- if anything -- to do about the increase. Tensions boiled over July 30, 2020 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued a statewide face mask mandate, despite opposition from Republicans who contend the move amounts to government overreach. In the days before that, though, the state Senate's Democratic Committee turned its frustration toward Republican lawmakers. ""While neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks, similar pleas in Wisconsin have fallen on deaf ears of Republican legislators,"" stated a July 24 news release. Lawmakers in those states have passed more COVID-19-related bills than Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature since the pandemic began. But some precautions, like a mask mandate, came from executive orders and not legislation. How does the committee's claim stack up? Eric LaGesse, executive director of the Senate's Democratic committee, did not respond to PolitiFact Wisconsin's request for evidence to back up their claim. But the claim is pretty straightforward, and there has been a lot of news coverage of the state's response to the pandemic. Here's a recap: In March, Evers and Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm issued a series of orders to curb large gatherings as COVID-19 began to emerge in Wisconsin. Those actions culminated in a stay-at-home order on March 24, 2020, which shut down the state to help contain the virus' spread. In April, lawmakers passed a coronavirus relief package that allowed the state to tap into extra federal Medicaid dollars and suspended a one-week waiting period for collecting unemployment benefits, among other provisions. However, the state lost $25 million in federal funding for unemployment because Republican leaders waited too long to schedule a floor session on the relief package. Evers' administration extended the stay-at-home order on April 16 and four days later unveiled the Badger Bounce Back plan, which provided a phased approach for reopening based on testing and other public health criteria. In May, acting on a lawsuit from state GOP leaders, the state Supreme Court struck down much of the order and allowed the state to reopen without any protocols in place. After that, not much happened at the state level until the mask mandate despite a recent surge in infections and multiple daily increases of over 1,000 cases. Lawmakers have introduced 10 bills related to the pandemic in recent months, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The relief package we mentioned earlier is the only one that's passed. The Democratic committee argued neighboring states -- specifically Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan -- have implemented more safety precautions for their residents. According to a database maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, Minnesota enacted 25 pieces of legislation related to COVID-19 through July 23 after lawmakers introduced over 200 measures. Illinois has passed 18, and Michigan approved 19. The bills touch on a wide range of issues, from COVID-19 testing to election procedures. The differences between Wisconsin and its neighbors can't be blamed on partisan gridlock, either. While Democrats control Illinois' state government, Minnesota's legislature is split between both parties with a Democrat in the governor's office. Michigan, like Wisconsin, has a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature. It's worth noting, though, that some of the precautions in other states came about through executive orders by their governors, not action by the legislature. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzer, for example, issued an order on June 26 requiring residents to wear face coverings -- over a month before Evers enacted a mask mandate in Wisconsin. Governors in other states also enacted stay-at-home orders similar to what Evers implemented. Wisconsin's state Senate Democratic Committee claimed Republican lawmakers have failed to act while ""neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."" It's clear that Wisconsin lawmakers are behind the curve on COVID-19 compared to neighboring legislatures. Legislative bodies in Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have introduced and passed more bills since the pandemic began. But they didn't act alone, and safety precautions like mask mandates were ordered by their governors. That leaves us with a statement that's accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: "Say Wisconsin Republican lawmakers have done nothing ""while neighboring states like Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan have already implemented safety precautions like requiring individuals to wear masks."
Solution:
Lawmakers in Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois have passed more COVID-19 legislation than Wisconsin's GOP-controlled legislature. That said, some safety precautions in those states came about through executive orders by the governors.