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: Cobalt is a key ingredient in the batteries that power electric vehicles, a fast-growing sector of the auto industry, and in metal alloys used to make jet engines. It was singled out in LME proposals to embed responsible sourcing principles into metal brands deliverable against its contracts, which include copper and zinc. Most of the world's supply comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, often from artisanal mines where several organizations have cited human rights abuses. The LME plan outlined last October involves suspending cobalt brands trading at a significant discount to its contract on the grounds that they may be seen as tainted. Now, objections by NGOs to a consultation on its plans could leave the exchange at risk of legal challenges from banned cobalt producers, metal industry sources say. The LME will publish its proposals this quarter. "The LME received 39 responses to its recent discussion paper on responsible sourcing," the exchange said. "The LME's role is now to identify a path forwards which balances the diverse views of its stakeholders (including civil society organizations), while achieving the LME's stated aim of helping the broader metals industry embrace key principles of responsible sourcing and environmental stewardship." The letter from the NGOs said the LME should not immediately ban cobalt brands and that it should work with firms that produce them to ensure responsible sourcing. "It is short-sighted and irresponsible of the LME to single out cobalt and tin as higher risk metals above others, or to single out (artisanal) material as implicitly higher risk," the letter signed by 14 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said. All companies involved with the exchange should implement responsible sourcing practices in line with the OECD Guidance, the letter dated Dec. 3 said. The OECD Guidance says companies should report in detail about their supply chains and advises on ways in which they can uncover and address human rights and corruption issues. "Heightened supply chain due diligence on cobalt, as with all other LME metals, must be triggered by assessment of all supply chain risks, including corruption risks," the NGO letter said. Sources say the business of an exchange is to facilitate trade between buyers and sellers. "The NGOs don't understand the difference between end consumers and the LME. The LME is a market of last resort, you can't choose which metal to take or reject," a metal trading source said. "Consumers can choose where they source their cobalt from, people buying on the LME can't, that's why there is such a deep discount between LME cobalt prices and (Fastmarkets MB)" Cobalt prices published by Fastmarkets MB at around $44,000 a tonne are $12,000 a tonne higher than those for the LME's contract, which was launched in 2010. However, the NGOs say singling out low-priced cobalt typically produced by artisanal miners ignores other "serious red flags" such as corruption by large-scale miners of all metals. "Is the LME trying to create a reputational green wash that allows it to say its members source responsibly because they tick some boxes," said Sophie Pickles, who leads Global Witness' work on conflict mineral. The director of "mines to market" at NGO Pact, Karen Hayes, said the LME's plan lacked detail on implementation. "We are more than willing to work with the LME or any companies seeking to comply with the LME's responsible sourcing standards," she said. Claim: Fourteen NGOs oppose London Metal Exchange plans to ban tainted cobalt.
Student:
Fourteen non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including Amnesty and Global Witness have opposed plans by the London Metal Exchange to ban cobalt tainted by human rights abuses, a letter seen by Reuters showed.