Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Let me give you an example: "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."
The answer to this example can be: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Here is why: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

OK. solve this:
The story notes the price "per squat" at various spas and the cost of a do-it-yourself Internet kit. We think the story's discussion of possible benefits is far too extensive considering the total lack of evidence to support them. We understand the need to identify some of the claims made by boostersof the therapy, but the story devotes some three paragraphs to seemingly every possible ailment the baths (or the herbs used in them) are purported to treat. It also throws in an anecdote from a woman suggesting the baths helped her to conceive at the age of 45. The caveats about chai-yok stand a goodchance of getting lost inthis avalanche of discussion about benefits. Aside from burns the potential for which would seem to be obvious we're not sure if there are any harms associated with herbal steam baths for the vagina. The procedure seems less invasive than a douche, which is associated with potential health risks. We'll call this not applicable. The story states that there are no studies that document the effectiveness of chai-yok for any of the conditions it is claimed to treat. It notes that while there is some biological rationale for why heat in the perineal area might be beneficial, it is impossible to say whether these steam baths do any good. The conceptbehind chai-yok seemsvaguely reminiscent of douching, a treatment that has long been promoted as necessary for vaginal health despite a lack of supporting evidence andindications of possible harm. But while the idea may tap into some of the same psychology that makes the normal vagina seem not quite clean or healthy enough, we don't see any evidence of overt disease-mongering in this particularstory. The story quotes twodoctors with expertise ingynecology and fertility. It also solicits comments from a practitioner of traditional oriental medicine. We don't think the story had to mention alternative treatments for all the myriad problems that chai yok can supposedly help with. But since the story suggests in several places thatchai yok increases fertility,we think a brief mention ofother approachesthat are supported by medical evidence would have been appropriate in this case. The story didn't provide this information. The story identifies several spas in Los Angeles and New Yorkwhere vaginal steam baths are offered. It notes that the treatments "are not easy to find" across the country. The story acknowledges the roots of chai-yok in Korean medicine.The approach is described asextremely avant garde in the U.S. a characterization which is probably accurate. Given the variety ofsources quoted, we can be sure the story wasn't based on a press release.
Answer:
Vaginal steam bath finds a place among Southern California spa options