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: Unfortunately, like the earlier Timesstory, the WSJ story doesn't mention costs, either those associated with taking prescription or over-the-counter drugs to treat insomnia or those associated with cognitive behavioral therapy. The closest the story comes to mentioning cost is when it notes that one problem with the use of prescription sleep aids is that insurance may not cover long-term use; this would have been an obvious point at which to note how expensive these drugs can be. The story suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy can be effective after as few as two sessions, but it doesn't say how many sessions the average patient requires, how expensive those sessions are likely to be nor how likely it is that insurance would cover this type of therapy. The story notes that one study of cognitive behavioral therapy showed that it reduced chronic insomnia and helped patients function more effectively during the daytime for up to two years. However, it does not specify whether the relief from chronic insomnia meant that patients had no bouts of insomnia or simply had less prolonged instances of insomnia, nor does it quantify how much improvement patients experienced in daytime functioning. In its discussion of chemical sleep aids, the article provides no specifics about effectiveness; rather, it focuses on the mechanisms by which the prescription drugs encourage sleep. (For an example of how to provide more specifics, see this criterion in our review of the Times' story on this same data.) The article focuses on why many doctors now recommend cognitive behavioral therapy rather than drugs as the first-line treatment for insomnia. As such, it does an excellent job of laying out all the negative potential side effects of anti-insomnia drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter. Given the seriousness of these potential harms including fatigue, sleep-walking and -eating, impaired balance and increased risks of falls and motor vehicle accidents and possibly even dementia this careful discussion of harmsprovides a valuable public service. Cognitive behavioral therapy does not appear to cause any harm, a point the story might have made more clearly, especially given that it describes the benefits as lasting for "up to two years," which could lead some readers to assume that CBT stops working after a relatively short time. Nonetheless, overall, the article is more than adequate in its discussion of the harms of the two approaches. This story is not focused on one specific study, but it notes that the American College of Physicians reviewed 15 years' worth of scientific evidence before issuing guidelines recommending that drugs should be used to treat insomnia only if cognitive behavioral therapy has failed. More could have been said about how thorough the review was that contributed to the guidelines, and if there were any notable gaps in research that limit the findings. The story does not exaggerate either the frequency or the severity of insomnia. The story had several independent sources and we detected no conflicts of interest. The primary focus of this story is explaining why cognitive behavioral therapy is the better alternative for treating insomnia due to the negative side effects of insomnia drugs. The story also includes a great deal of practical information about "sleep hygiene," as well. The story notes that CBT can be provided by any trained therapist or nurse. The story could have been morehelpful if it had specified how common this training is and how a patient seeking CBT could go about finding a health care professional trained in the technique. The article also might have mentioned that systematic analysis of studies has shown that even web-based versions of cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively treat insomnia, making it even more widely available. The storydoes not suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy is new. It does, however, refer to the relatively new (as of May 2016) American College of Physicians guidelines recommending cognitive behavioral therapy over drug treatment for insomnia. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Can't Get to Sleep? Lay Off the Drugs
Solution:
This story explains why those suffering from insomnia should take heed of the American College of Physicians' recommendation to usecognitive behavioral therapy as a first-line treatment, before turning to prescription or over-the-counter drugs. Rather than focusing on the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy, as a New York Times story we reviewed earlier this year did, the Wall Street Journal story lays out the serious side effects associated with insomnia drugs, providing a clear and easily understood discussion of why drug treatment should be considered a last resort, to be used only by those for whom cognitive behavioral therapy has failed. However, the story would have been stronger if it had discussed the costs of treatments, and provided more specific numbers on how beneficial these treatment options are in clinical research. Lack of sleep is a big concern for many Americans, especially older adults. This story specifically addressed why sleep medications are not ideal for this age group, in terms of potential harms. But it didn't dig deep enough into the data on the effectiveness of the various options. This helps readers assess the all-important question: Do the benefits outweigh the harms? And, without cost information, readers can't answer another important question: Can I afford it?