Detailed Instructions: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
See one example below:
Problem: "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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

Problem: Scientists on Wednesday said a fossilized skull discovered deep inside a Spanish cave shows telltale signs of homicide: two fractures inflicted by the same weapon. The skull, belonging to a primitive member of the Neanderthal lineage, was found in an apparent funerary site down a shaft in the appropriately bleak-sounding Sima de los Huesos, Spanish for "Pit of the Bones," in the Atapuerca mountains. The skull shows that our species, Homo sapiens, cannot claim a monopoly on murder. "This individual was killed in an act of lethal interpersonal violence, providing a window into an often-invisible aspect of the social life of our human ancestors," said paleontologist Nohemi Sala of Madrid's Centro Mixto UCM-ISCIII de Evolucion y Comportamiento Humano. This oldest-known example of murder occurred 230,000 years before our species first appeared in Africa. "Based on the similarities in shape and size of both the wounds, we believe they are the result of repeated blows with the same object and inflicted by another individual, perhaps in a face-to-face encounter," Sala added. Remains of nearly 30 individuals were found at the bottom of the 43-foot (13-meter) shaft. The murder victim suffered two penetrating fractures on the forehead's left side, above the eye. Using forensic methods like those employed by police, the researchers interpreted the wounds, each nearly an inch (2 cm) wide, as evidence of blunt-force trauma occurring around the time of death. "We have examined the bone microscopically and used CT scans," added paleontologist Juan Luis Arsuaga of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Sala said the weapon may have been a wooden spear, stone spear tip or stone hand-axe. The presence of a notch at a similar location in the outlines of both fractures indicates they were caused by the same object. "Since either of these wounds would likely have been lethal, penetrating the brain, the presence of multiple wounds implies an intention to kill," Sala said. Arsuaga said the victim was a young adult. Whether it was a man or woman is not clear. The motive and perpetrator are unlikely ever to be known. "Unfortunately, the intentions do not fossilize, so it is impossible to interpret the motivation of the killing," Sala said. "Not even Sherlock Holmes could help us in that." The research appears in the scientific journal PLOS ONE.
Solution:
Cold case: scientists encounter prehistoric murder mystery.