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: Those in the second group likely bear a gene type that not only increases their addiction risk, but has been implicated in the development of lung cancer, researchers said on Friday. "If you have this variant, you are going to like your earliest experiences with smoking," said Ovide Pomerleau of the University of Michigan Medical School, whose research appears in the journal Addiction. Pomerleau said the finding suggests that for some, smoking even one cigarette is a bad idea. "It's a trap," he said in a telephone interview. "What they don't realize is if they have this kind of genetic make-up, they are on their way to dependency," he said, and that raises their risk for lung cancer. The research is part of a growing understanding of genetic factors involved in nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Teams of scientists reported earlier this year that smokers who had certain changes in three nicotine receptor genes which control entry of nicotine into brain cells were more likely to develop lung cancer than other smokers. This week, Canadian researchers said that, by manipulating receptors for the chemical dopamine, they were able to control which rats in a study enjoyed their first exposure to nicotine and which were repelled by it. Pomerleau said the field may soon lead to new treatments for nicotine addiction and tests to assess addiction risks. Smoking causes nine out of 10 cases of lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide and the second-leading cause of cancer death among women. Pomerleau and colleagues studied data from 435 people. Some had tried a cigarette but never developed a habit; others smoked at least five cigarettes a day for the past five years. Regular smokers in the study were far more likely than those who had never smoked to have a change in the CHRNA5 nicotine receptor gene. Smokers were eight times more likely to report liking cigarettes from the start. Pomerleau said work has begun to develop a genetic screen for the CHRNA5 variant. Two other researchers on the team, Laura Bierut and John Rice at Washington University, hold a patent on the gene variant, which has been licensed by privately held Perlegen Sciences Inc. Pfizer Inc, maker of the smoking cessation drug Chantix owns a $50 million stake in Perlegen. Pomerleau, who has served on Pfizer's scientific advisory board, said he favors development of diagnostic tests, as long as people understand it is not the only risk factor for nicotine addiction. "What we don't know is far greater than what we do know," he said. Claim: Gene raises risk of lifetime smoking habit: study.
Solution:
For most people, the first experimental drags on a cigarette bring on nausea, coughing and other signals from the brain that say, "Turn back. This is a bad idea." But for some, they bring a wave of pleasure.