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: The government-funded study by the National Academy of Sciences also found that the Mexican gray wolf of New Mexico and Arizona is a subspecies, which advocates say should support conservation efforts. Another wolf species, the Western gray wolf, is thriving in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and could lose federal protections under a proposal released earlier this month. For red wolves, the affirmation of their genetic uniqueness comes after some North Carolina officials and a small but vocal group of landowners pushed the government to abandon recovery efforts, arguing the animal is a coyote hybrid. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Laury Parramore declined to comment on the agency-funded study beyond a statement saying it was under review. Red wolves once occupied much of the Eastern U.S. but were driven to near extinction by trapping, hunting and habitat loss. Some of the last red wolves in the wild were removed from portions of Louisiana and Texas in 1980 and used in a captive breeding program. Their descendants were later reintroduced to a wildlife refuge along North Carolina's coast. An estimated 35 wild red wolves remained as of late 2018, down from about 120 a decade ago. Their range is currently limited to five North Carolina counties. Another 200 live in captive breeding programs. Acknowledging longstanding questions among some scientists about red wolf ancestry, federal wildlife officials said last year they would treat it as a distinct species while awaiting Thursday's report. The nine-member national academy panel found that the red wolf is unique based on its DNA, its behavior and its size, which is larger than a coyote and smaller than a gray wolf. While the red wolf appears more closely related to coyotes than gray wolves, red wolves diverged as their own species long ago, said Joseph Travis, chair of the national academy panel and a biology professor at Florida State University. "There's clearly been introduction of coyote genes and gray wolf genes into red wolves. But they also have genes not seen in coyotes and gray wolves," Travis said in an interview. "They must have continuity with some ancestor which was not a gray wolf or coyote." Ron Sutherland, a biologist with the nonprofit Wildlands Network, said he had been waiting on "pins and needles" to see what the panel decided. "That should be a kick in the butt for the Fish and Wildlife Service to stop the quiet negligence of letting the species go extinct in the wild," he said. A government plan to further shrink the territory where red wolves roam stalled last year when a judge ruled officials were neglecting their duty to protect the animals under the Endangered Species Act. That same plan would have allowed landowners to kill any wolves that strayed from the proposed smaller territory consisting of federal land in two counties. Conservationists accused the federal agency of neglecting the animals under political pressure and abandoning proven conservation techniques, such as releasing captive bred pups. In 2015, North Carolina's Wildlife Resources Commission passed a resolution urging an end to the federal program, saying "the purity of the red wolf genome is questionable" after hybridization with coyotes. Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis has also urged its end. The study released Thursday had been ordered by Congress as part of a 2018 appropriations bill. ___ Brown reported from Billings, Montana. Claim: Government-funded study says red wolves are distinct species.
Student:
A panel of top scientists concluded Thursday that the endangered red wolf of the southeastern U.S. is a species unto itself, giving the beleaguered canine a scientific and political boost as its numbers plummet in the wild.