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.

Example Input: Paragraph: There is no discussion of cost in this release. The journal article says several institutions refused to provide their prices. Nevertheless, the high cost of robotic surgery is an important issue. The researchers wrote they were unable to say whether those high costs might be offset [or not] by certain potential benefits (such as shorter hospital stays), but the release should have at least acknowledged the cost issues. The release does report the percentage of patients in the robot-assisted and open surgery groups that were still alive with no signs of disease progression two years after their procedures: 72.3 percent of patients in the robotic surgery group compared with 71.6 percent in the open surgery group and it notes the difference was not statistically significant. It also reports that the robot-assisted surgery patients checked out of the hospital after six days on average, compared to 7 days for those in the open surgery group. The release reports only half as much blood loss in the robot surgery group, but does not report the amounts, which averaged 300 mL in the robot-assisted group vs. 700 mL in the open surgery group that's a difference of less than one pint. The release reports that patients who had robot-assisted surgery spent more time in the operating room than those having open procedures (seven hours vs. six hours). It also reports overall rates of adverse effects (67 percent in the robot group vs. 69 percent in the open group), along with listing the most common problems: urinary tract infections and intestinal obstructions. It would have helped if the release had pointed out that these complication rates were not statistically different. In a way, the release is satisfactory and yet maddeningly unsatisfactory. It tells readers that the study was a randomly controlled trial with 350 patients, but it buries the most important point: that the ability of these researchers to do this sort of rigorous trial comparing robot-assisted surgery with open techniques highlights how few such trials are done. Deep in the release, the researchers are quoted as saying the findings "underscore the need for further high-quality trials to assess surgical innovation before this surgical technique is widely adopted in clinical practice" and further that "It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate)." The quality of the evidence should have been the lead. The release does not exaggerate the prevalence of bladder cancer. It does not push treatment on those who are unlikely to benefit. The release could be interpreted as promoting a newer more expensive form of therapy that doesn't provide any advantages over the standard therapy. Although the release reports that the study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, it fails to note the financial disclosures several researchers made about money they have received from companies relevant to this study. The comparison of robot-assisted to open surgery was the main point of the release. The release makes clear that both techniques are available including at the institution that issued the release. The release could have informed readers that, according to the published paper, that all ofthe operators in this study haddone at least 10 robot-assisted cystectomies before being allowed to participate in the study. When widespread adoption of the robot-assisted procedure occurs, it would be possible that many surgeons would not have completed that many robotic cystectomies. While the release does tell readers that what is really new here is the use of randomization to compare robot-assisted surgery to open surgery for bladder cancer, it manages to bury that lead so deep under the poorly worded description of the results of this non-inferiority trial that the thrust of the release is unsatisfactory. The release doesn't employ unjustified, sensational language. Claim: Robotic surgery as effective as open surgery for bladder cancer
Example Output: This news release about a trial that randomly assigned people with bladder cancer to either robot-assisted or open surgery buried the real news under a weak lead that garbles the findings. The news here is that, contrary to assertions of many proponents of robot-assisted surgery, it is possible to randomize patients in order to get a valuable comparison instead of relying on weaker study designs that can't answer the fundamental question about how old and new techniques compare. The release is rated as satisfactory on many criteria because key information was included in the body of the release, but the headline proclaiming that robot surgery is "as effective" as open surgery misses the larger point. The headline and lead also put a pro-robot spin on the results, which could also be summarized as robot surgery is "not clearly worse." Also not explained: robot-assisted surgery is more expensive. The final sentence of the release, a quote from a researcher, should have been the lead: "It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate)." We are bombarded with releases and news stories trumpeting results from studies of robot-assisted surgery that don't actually compare the new technology to existing practice. These studies often lack any control group or use historical data that may not be truly comparable. The promoters of expensive new devices then claim that they are relying on the best available evidence. This trial shows better evidence can (and should) be gathered. And in this case, good quality evidence indicates little difference in the techniques, despite what all the big hospital billboards about robot surgery proclaim.

Example Input: Paragraph: Homebred beef cattle are seen at a local cattle market in Hongseong, about 170 km (106 miles) south of Seoul July 29, 2008. A rare genetic mutation may underlie some cases of mad cow disease in cattle and its discovery may help shed light on where the epidemic started, U.S. researchers reported on Friday. REUTERS/Lee Jae-Won The mutation, in an Alabama cow that tested positive in 2006 for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, is identical to one that causes a related brain-wasting disease in humans. This suggests BSE may sometimes arise spontaneously in cattle. Jurgen Richt of Kansas State University said cattle producers must never let down their guard against BSE because cattle anywhere, at any time, can develop the disease. The finding may support a 2005 theory that the BSE epidemic in cattle could be traced to feed contaminated with cattle remains from India, the researchers report in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Pathogens. BSE or mad cow disease swept through British dairy herds in the 1980s, forcing the destruction of millions of animals. No one ever found where it came from but most experts thought at the time it came from cattle feed that contained the remains of sheep infected with a similar disease called scrapie. Cattle were never known to develop BSE before the epidemic, but some experts have argued they may have. This report lends credence to that idea. BSE, scrapie and a human version called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD, are brain-destroying illnesses called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. In some cases, animals or people that eat brain and nervous system material from victims of these diseases can develop them, too. They are passed along by misfolded infectious protein fragments called prions. A very rare disease called variant CJD has been found in people who ate infected beef products. Fatal and incurable, it has affected just 167 people so far. Most countries now ban the use of meat and other parts from mammals in food for cattle. They also ban the use of potentially infectious tissues such as brain and spinal cord in human food. "There are tendencies around the world, now that the feed-borne epidemic has gone down, to relax these rules and regulations," Richt said in a telephone interview. "So if we have these genetic cases popping up here and there and we don't have our mitigations in place, we will have another epidemic somewhere." He suggested breeding the gene out of cattle. "We can clean the world cattle herd of that mutation," Richt said. CJD is also known to pop up spontaneously in the human population. A genetic mutation causes the disease in one in a million people globally. Richt and colleagues tested the brain of the Alabama cow and found a mutation identical to the prion gene mutation that causes some cases of CJD. It is probably rare in cattle, found in fewer than one in 2,000, they said in the report, published here But the animal passed along its mutation to its heifer, which suggests it is inherited. Claim: Gene mutation underlies some mad cow disease: study.
Example Output: A rare genetic mutation may underlie some cases of mad cow disease in cattle and its discovery may help shed light on where the epidemic started, U.S. researchers reported on Friday.

Example Input: Paragraph: U.S. travelers should "exercise increased caution", the State Department said on Friday in an updated travel advisory that cited reports of "a probable Ebola-related death in Dar es Salaam". Tanzania denies the reports, saying no cases of Ebola have been confirmed, but with transparency key to combating the deadly and fast-spreading hemorrhagic fever, the government is under mounting pressure to provide clarification. The foreign affairs ministry was not immediately available on Saturday for comment on the U.S. advisory. Authorities in east and central Africa have been on high alert for possible spillovers of Ebola from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a year-long outbreak has killed more than 2,100 people. Tanzania and DRC share a border that is separated by a lake. In a rare public rebuke, the World Health Organisation (WHO) last week said that, contrary to international health regulations, Tanzania was refusing to provide details of suspected cases. Days earlier, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traveled to Tanzania at the direction of U.S. Health Secretary Alex Azar, who had also criticized the country for not sharing information. The WHO said that, while it was concerned by the lack of transparency, it has no evidence on the presence of Ebola in Tanzania, but ruled out punitive action and reiterated it had advised against travel or trade restrictions. Tanzania on Tuesday summoned the WHO's local representative over its assertion. In mid-September, the health minister said the government had investigated two recent cases of unknown illnesses, but they tested negative for Ebola. Claim: The starting salary for teachers increased from 21,600 in 2010 to 24,400 in 2020.
Example Output:
The United States has warned its citizens to take extra care when visiting Tanzaniaamid concerns over Ebola, adding to calls for the East African country to share information about suspected cases of the deadly disease there.