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: New Hampshire recently set some of the nation's toughest standards for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively called PFAS, but a judge temporarily blocked enforcement in November after chemical company 3M sued. The New Hampshire standard limits one chemical to a maximum of 12 parts per trillion and another to 15 parts per trillion, far lower than the 70 parts per trillion the Environmental Protection Agency has advised for the chemicals. Sanders, a Vermont senator, said instead of spending millions on lawsuits to gut clean water rules, such companies should be paying to clean up contamination. He said as president, he will create national clean water standards for PFAS and other chemicals in an effort to guarantee clean drinking water "as a human right." "Corporate greed is threatening one of the most basic necessities of life: clean water," he said in a statement. "Not only will we support state efforts to enforce stronger clean water laws, we are going to create federal clean water standards that force these companies to clean up their mess." More than 700 homes in New Hampshire whose drinking water was contaminated by PFAS have been connected to new water, and the state estimates that more than 100,000 other people eventually could be affected. The contamination is the result of the chemicals leaking into groundwater from industrial facilities, as well as a former Air Force base. Studies have found potential links between high levels in the body of one form of the contaminants and a range of illnesses, including kidney cancer, increased cholesterol levels and problems in pregnancies. 3M Co., based in St. Paul, Minnesota, said in a statement Tuesday that it "supports appropriate science-based regulations of PFAS" and therefore backs "consideration of an enforceable, science-based national drinking water standard" for the toxic chemicals. "A consistent and unified federal policy based on sound science can help avoid the confusion and uncertainty of a state-by-state patchwork of regulations," the company said. ___ Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, "Ground Game." Claim: Sanders says he'll enact national drinking water standards .
Solution:
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he would enact federal drinking water standards for a group of toxic chemicals that have caused widespread contamination in New Hampshire and other states.