You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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: 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.
Why? 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.

New input: Paragraph: "Harrowing images of wooden caskets being lowered into mass graves in New York City circulated on social media as the city responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. The images and related video footage are accurate depictions of recent burials on Hart Island in the Long Island Sound. That said, there have been some misconceptions about the mass graves. Posts about the grave site were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First, mass burials didn't begin on Hart Island during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has used the location as a public cemetery for over 150 years, burying unclaimed people and those whose loved ones can't afford private burials. Second, not all locals who die from COVID-19 are being buried there, as some posts have suggested. The site is still designated for deceased people with no known next of kin. But as the city struggles with the mounting death toll amid the pandemic, burials on the island have dramatically increased in recent weeks. There are usually about 25 burials on the island each week, the New York mayor's press secretary Freddie Goldstein told CNN. But that number has climbed to nearly 25 each day. The island's interment operation is managed by the city's Department of Correction, and inmates usually assist in the burials. But that has changed since the pandemic. DOC spokesperson Jason Kersten has said that city inmates are not currently involved with the burials: ""For social distancing and safety reasons, city-sentenced people in custody are not assisting in burials for the duration of the pandemic. Contracted laborers are performing this important work under DOC supervision,"" according to a report by the Gothamist. Bodies are ordinarily held at the city's morgues anywhere from 30 to 60 days, Goldstein said. But to make room for the influx of deceased individuals during the pandemic, the city's medical examiner's office announced a new policy of holding unclaimed bodies for only up to 15 days before they are transferred to the island. New York City's Hart Island has been used as a public cemetery for unclaimed bodies since the 1800s, but the city's staggering death toll amid the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically increased the number of burials on the island. Social media posts about the burials are mostly accurate, but many need additional information." Claim: Images show COVID-19 victims being buried in mass graves in New York City.
Solution:
Photos and video footage showing dozens of caskets being buried in large trenches on Hart Island in New York City are legitimate. Not all local COVID-19 victims are being automatically buried there. The site has been used by the city since the 19th century as a public cemetery for unclaimed people and those whose families can't afford private burials.