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 this very narrow discussion of a small study in mice, the suggestion is that someday maybe walnuts (or some nutritional element of walnuts) could help people by slowing the growth of colon cancer. But while the study doesn't mention how much (or how little) such a therapy might cost, we think this criterion is Not Applicable here for two reasons: 1. the cost of walnuts is generally well known, and 2. the research is at early enough stage and the release establishes the preliminary nature of the study that it's hard to know what any walnut-related therapy might cost. Furthermore, while the criteria of cost is integral to what we all agree is good reporting about health outcomes, incorporating information about the potential cost of walnuts or any other foodstuffs in a release about a study that's so preliminary might actually reinforce the suggestion of a useful therapy. Including that info wouldn't improve anyone's understanding of the importance of the research. The research on a small group of mice showed slowing of the growth of colon cancer tumors. The research proved that tumors in mice fed walnuts had "10 times the amount of total omega-3 fatty acids, including plant-based alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), in the tissue compared to the mice fed the control diet." Although the quantification here is limited, we'll give the story credit for accurately reporting the outcomes in broad strokes. The detailed results of what happened in a mouse study have limited use for the average human reader anyway. But while the release does not state that the mouse study could lead to prevention for humans, we're worried that a normal reader may see the suggested effects of an enhanced walnut diet increased anti-inflammatory activity, reduced angiogenesis, increased protective lipid content and assume that these affect actual cancer outcomes. Set aside the major caveat that it is an animal study for a moment the release says that walnuts "may" slow the growth of colon cancer. It also equally may not. The limited study did not appear to investigate potential harms, and the release didn't comment on them. For humans, consumption of too many calorie-dense walnuts could precipitate weight gain. But the equivalent of two ounces a day doesn't sound like it could be very harmful. We'll rate this Not Applicable. While the main headline was not upfront about the fact that the study involved mice, the body of the release itself was carefully worded and did a fair job of describing the evidence. It's always helpful to see "animal" in the very first sentence of a study involving mice. microRNAs are a complicated topic, asare changes in gene expression, which is at the root of the questions that the study addressed. The release adequately describes the evidence drawn from the work but does so sparsely. The eight-page paper is reduced to an eight-paragraph release, only three paragraphs of which actually convey an explanation of the work. What the release offers is acceptable by our standards but more information, properly couched, could aid readers in assessing the study's true value. There was no disease mongering. Funding sources were identified, netting this release a Satisfactory rating, but when a fundor is integrally related to the substance of the research, that mention belongs higher up in the story or release, rather than tagged onto the end, allowing readers to consider the context of the funding early in their reading of the material. The release discusses the chemistry of inflammation and the growth of tumors in the mice. It briefly mentions "diet and lifestyle changes" as means to reduce risk, but does not discuss what specific changes are shown to be helpful. It also does not discuss screening and polyp removal, arguably the best-supported intervention for catching colon cancer before it spreads. We accept that walnuts are widely available. There has already been research on the potential protective influence of omega-3 fatty acids for inflammation. The release clearly explained the novelty of this specific mouse study investigating underlying chemistry and how it may work. While we aren't happy with the headline, we think this release squeaks by because the main text is accurate and we applaud the first sentence clearly labeling it an "animal study." The release clearly avoids any sensationalized verbiage, a feat to be lauded in cases like this when an inference of a simple activity like eating nuts might lead a reader to jump to wrong conclusions. Claim: New Harvard research finds walnuts may help slow colon cancer growth A walnut-enriched diet may cause beneficial genetic changes in animal cancer cells, affecting inflammation, blood supply and growth of tumors
Solution:
Mice are not people. Yet many medical research headlines about mouse studies extend the implicit promise that whatever is discovered may cure diseases in humans. This release tries to correct that by mentioning "animal study" in the sub-headline and in its first sentence. That's more than many releases would do, but the main headline (not the subhead) is what appears in search results about this release, and we still worry most people will assume the wrong implicit promise. The study discussed here is about the biochemistry surrounding certain genetic changes in mice fed walnuts while growing colon cancer tumors. It appears the mouse tumors grew more slowly in the mice fed the equivalent of a human diet of two ounces of walnuts per day. The study is trying to unpack the mechanism of that impact. And apart from the headline, it mostly does a satisfactory job of communicating the results of the study in a responsible, measured way. But let's remember that these findings in mice are many years away from any human application. And yet a public relations company connected to the California Walnut Commission is very eager to make sure you probably not a cancer scientist, but definitely a human potential walnut consumer are aware of what happened in these mice. Yes, the study carries tantalizing information about the way the walnut diet appears to influence the genetics of colon tumors in the mice but it will take much more investigation before it yields the kind of results that warrant a headline, "New Harvard research finds walnuts may help slow colon cancer growth." According to the National Cancer Institute, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. If something as simple as eating walnuts could reduce that risk or slow down cancer progression, it would matter quite a bit.