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.
Example: "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."
Example solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example 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: During a June 2, 2020 protest against police brutality and racial injustice in Asheville, North Carolina, police in riot gear destroyed a medic tent operated by an "all-volunteer team of doctors, certified nurses, EMTs, military combat medics, and citizens with CPR and first-aid certifications." According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, the team "had a verbal agreement with APD to be present, even after curfew." Nevertheless, a scene captured by witnesses minutes after the curfew began showed police forcibly removing volunteers, crushing and emptying water bottles, and destroying the tent: One volunteer said, "We were not protesting. We were not agitating. We had claimed that space. We had set up a triage area in case of any injuries. We had eyewash, sutures, EMT, doctors, EMS workers. They came in full riot gear, hit us with shields, threw several people to the ground. We were grabbed, thrown, shouted at, screamed at, treated as criminals. No one resisted." Videos of the tent's destruction went viral, and public outrage followed. The Asheville Police Department's initial statement from Chief David Zack on June 3, 2020, confirmed that the incident took place, but defended the department's actions, largely placing blame for the incident on the medical volunteers: As the Chief of Police I understand the concern has been raised over the destruction of water, food, and medical supplies. The Asheville Police Department (APD) would always prefer confiscation over destruction. We apologize for not being able to confiscate these supplies last night. Over the past three days APD has tried to eliminate objects that can be thrown at protesters and law enforcement. Because water bottles, in particular, have been continuously used over the last three nights, officers destroyed them. Officers also searched for potentially dangerous objects, such as explosives. The supply station was not permitted by the City of Asheville and was located on private property, without the permission of the property owner. The actions involving the supply station occurred following multiple warnings, and after the 8 p.m. city-wide curfew. But this statement from the chief only exacerbated tensions in Asheville.
Solution: Asheville police officers destroyed a medic tent and its supplies while enforcing a curfew during a protest against police brutality.