Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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
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.
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: Bayer acquired Monsanto this year for $63 billion. "If we can settle nuisances at some point where the defense costs in preparing cases are higher than potential settlement amounts, we will of course consider it from an economic standpoint," CEO Werner Baumann told reporters when asked whether there was any scenario in which Bayer would consider settling. He added: "We will resolutely and with all means defend ourselves in this (glyphosate) litigation." Baumann was speaking on Monday to German media invited to visit Bayer's new operations in the former research and development facilities of Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. The remarks, made on Monday, were embargoed to the end of the week to allow media to return home. Shares in Bayer have lost 25 percent in value since Aug. 10, when a San Francisco jury awarded $289 million to Dewayne Johnson on grounds Monsanto failed to warn the school groundskeeper and other consumers of the cancer risks posed by glyphosate-based RoundUp and Ranger Pro. Johnson has terminal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that he alleges was caused by the herbicides. A judge later reduced the award to $78 million. Bayer denies that glyphosate causes cancer and says decades of scientific studies and real-world use have shown the chemical to be safe for human use. The company is appealing the findings. The number of glyphosate cases that Bayer faces across the United States has jumped to more than 8,700, prompting concerns among investors about the impact of litigation costs on Bayer's bottom line. Baumann expressed confidence that Bayer could handle the litigation, and cited its "inexpensive" $12 million settlement of 4,000 lawsuits over its contraceptive Mirena device. Bayer also won five of six trials over its best-selling bloodthinner Xarelto, over which it faces 24,000 U.S. lawsuits. The sixth jury found in favor of a plaintiff, but a judge later overturned the decision. "Due to our exposure as a pharmaceutical company, we have the experience to defend those (glyphosate) cases," he said. Baumann said the company's legal strategy had been revised following the integration of Bayer and Monsanto in mid-August. He declined to provide details, but recent court filings reveal some of the steps the company has taken. Last week, Bayer added the attorneys from law firm Arnold & Portner who won the Xarelto cases for the company to its glyphosate defense team. It is also trying to change the juror selection process for upcoming trials. In filings last week in San Francisco federal court, where a new glyphosate trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 25, 2019, Bayer said the "jury pool likely has grown more hostile" due to negative media coverage following the Johnson verdict. Michael Miller, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, said the company's claims were "hypocritical beyond belief" given its own efforts to control the message on glyphosate, most recently in a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post. Bayer has asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who is overseeing the San Francisco case and some 580 others, to significantly expand the jury pool and question prospective jurors about their knowledge of the media coverage of the cases. Chhabria is expected to decide on the requests in December. Claim: Bayer CEO says would consider glyphosate settlement depending on costs.
Student:
Bayer AG's chief executive said this week the company might consider settling lawsuits over Monsanto's glyphosate-containing weed-killers depending on how high court costs rise, but stressed it remained focused on defending the combined company against claims they cause cancer.