Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: "In an announcement, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy said that its efforts to persuade Gorsky to testify included "repeated attempts to accommodate the company" over nearly a month. Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi, chairman of the House panel investigating concerns about cancer-causing asbestos in cosmetic talc and powders, said he was disappointed Gorsky turned down the invitation. "Mr. Gorsky refuses to speak to the Subcommittee under oath, yet he has not refrained from making multiple public comments on the topic," Krishnamoorthi said in a statement. J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz said that the subcommittee had rejected the company's offers to send a talc testing expert or a J&J executive in charge of consumer products. Gorsky "is not, as we have repeatedly told the Subcommittee, an expert in the stated subject of the hearing," Knewitz said. "We have respectfully declined the invitation for our CEO to testify." Knewitz said that the composition of the hearing, which includes two experts who have testified for plaintiffs against J&J, also factored into the company's decision. Gorsky has played a lead role in J&J's efforts to reassure consumers and investors that its talc powders are safe and asbestos free. Last year, he issued a statement vouching for the safety of the products after a jury issued a $4.69 billion verdict in favor of 22 women who sued over allegations their ovarian cancers were caused by J&J powders. Gorsky appeared on CNBC's ""Mad Money with Jim Cramer"" and in a video posted on J&J's website to rebut a December 2018 Reuters report here that the company knew for decades about the presence of small amounts of asbestos in its talc and powders. "Since tests for asbestos in talc were first developed, J&J's Baby Powder has never contained asbestos," Gorsky said in the video. In October, Gorsky testified in a depositihere in a lawsuit filed by an Indiana man, saying, ""We unequivocally believe that our talc and our baby powder does not contain asbestos."" J&J faces more than 16,000 similar lawsuits. Concerns over asbestos in talc cosmetics have grown in recent months as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that the carcinogen had been found in several products, including a bottle of Baby Powder. J&J said it recalled 33,000 bottles of Baby Powder "out of an abundance of caution." Later, J&J said labs it hired found no asbestos - other than some contamination it blamed on an air conditioner - in samples from the same Baby Powder bottle and its production lot. The FDA has said it stands by its finding. Chief executives of companies embroiled in controversies routinely comply with lawmakers' invitations to testify. In recent months, the CEOs of Boeing (BA.N) and Facebook (FB.O) have appeared before congressional committees to answer questions about how their companies were safeguarding consumers. Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said CEOs have a responsibility to go to Washington when Congress calls, just like other citizens. But Elson said Gorsky's pass was understandable. He said the CEO and his advisers probably figured that the downside was greater to testifying than not. "It's being invited in for a punch in the nose," Elson said. For Gorsky, "nothing good will come out of it."" Claim: J&J CEO spurns U.S. congressional hearing on carcinogens in talc products.
Solution:
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) Chief Executive Officer Alex Gorsky has declined to appear at a U.S. congressional hearing set for Tuesday on the safety of the company's Baby Powder and other talc-based cosmetics.