Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: "Unemployment payments have been a big point of concern in Wisconsin since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites were laid off or furloughed due to the health crisis, putting intense pressure on the state's unemployment insurance system. And since March 2020, a backlog of unpaid unemployment claims has led to Wisconsinites facing difficult choices when it comes to paying rent, car payments and other bills. As people wait -- some for more than three months -- Republican lawmakers and others have criticized the state Department of Workforce Development, the agency responsible for paying unemployment benefits. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, is one of them. In a June 9, 2020 Facebook post, Vos included an image that listed all 50 states with Wisconsin as the last one to start paying out federal unemployment compensation benefits under the CARES Act, which was signed by President Donald Trump at the end of March. In the image, Wisconsin is listed as starting to make federal PUC payments on April 29, 2020, just behind Connecticut, which is listed as starting its payments three days earlier. At the top: Illinois, listed as starting April 6, 2020 -- more than three weeks before Wisconsin. PUC stands for Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, though most may know this as the extra payments -- generally $600 -- offered by the federal government. Is Vos right, that Wisconsin residents were the last to get those payments? When asked for backup, Vos' office provided a link to a study by the Hamilton Project, part of the Brookings Institute, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit research group . That study is the genesis of the list Vos shared, and reflects the same results. The study -- and Vos' list -- specifically focuses on the PUC payments, but there is another program to add to our alphabet soup: The PUA, or Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. Those payments are available to people who wouldn't normally qualify for unemployment. While Wisconsin was the final state to start making the PUC payments, the same study showed the state fared better on the PUA ones. The state began processing those applications April 21, 2020, with payments starting a week later -- much earlier than some states. On those payments, Nevada came in last, not processing applications until mid-May, according to the study. Wisconsin ranked nearer to the top of that list, with the earliest processing dates starting on April 13 in Alabama and Texas. Ben Jedd, communications director for the state Department of Workforce Development, acknowledged the state was last to make the enhanced unemployment payments. He blamed the state's old computer system, as has Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. Jedd also said the delay was caused, in part, by the timing of action by Vos and other Republican Legislative leaders in scheduling a vote to suspend a one-week waiting period typically required for newly unemployed Wisconsinites. In late May, Republican leaders in the Senate and Assembly didn't immediately schedule a floor session to take up a package backed by Evers, which included waiving the waiting period. Instead, Republicans waited three weeks for the session, causing the state to miss out on $25 million from the CARES Act to help pay for unemployment benefits. ""The reason DWD was the last to pay FPUC is the length of time it took to program our COBOL software and the fact that we had to wait for the legislation repealing the waiting week to be passed to complete programming for that change before we could begin,"" Jedd said. He also noted Wisconsin fared better on the PUA program. But that program applies to far fewer people, and the image shared by Vos makes clear that the last-in-the-nation ranking applies to the PUC payments. Vos claimed Wisconsin was the last state to pay out COVID-related federal unemployment money. He is on target about that, but the claim fails to note two important factors: Delays by Republicans played a role in the poor showing by Wisconsin, and the state fared better when it came to payments from a related federal program. Our definition for is ""The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."" That fits here." Claim: Wisconsin was the last state to start paying COVID-related federal unemployment benefits.
Answer:
Wisconsin did have trouble getting the federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation payments to Wisconsinites, and was the last to do so. But the state started making federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance payments at about the same time as most other states.