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: "When U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) was honored by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, she issued a statement saying ""we have a real crisis on our hands."" In Wisconsin, her Oct. 7, 2010, statement read, ""deaths from domestic violence are at the highest in 10 years."" Indeed, eight days earlier, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence released a report that made that claim. According to her spokesman, Moore based her statement on a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article about the report. The article said domestic violence ""claimed 67 lives"" in 2009. We wondered: Does that mean domestic abusers killed 67 people? And is that number, as Moore claimed, a 10-year high? The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, like the national organization that honored Moore, is an advocacy group committed to ending domestic violence. It has produced a ""domestic violence homicide report"" each year since 2000, using data from crime report summaries from local police agencies and from various news articles. The coalition defines homicide as ""the killing of one human being by another."" But its annual homicide reports actually count more than that. As in previous years, the 67 deaths in the 2009 report included homicides in commonly understood domestic violence cases -- such as when the victims and perpetrators were spouses or partners, former spouses or partners, or adults with children in common. Homicides of other people are counted if, for example, a woman's current boyfriend kills the woman's former boyfriend; if a third person trying to protect a domestic violence victim kills the perpetrator; or if the domestic violence victim kills the perpetrator in self-defense. But the Wisconsin coalition -- as it clearly notes in its report -- also adds suicides committed by domestic violence perpetrators. For example, it counts the January 2009 death of a Fond du Lac County man who took his own life after shooting his wife to death outside their home. All told, the coalition says that in 2009, ""there were 47 domestic violence homicide incidents resulting in 67 deaths -- 52 homicides and 15 perpetrator suicides."" Many people would not consider a domestic violence perpetrator who committed suicide to be a domestic violence victim. The coalition says it has always included perpetrator suicides in its annual tallies because they occurred as a result of a domestic violence incident, said spokesman Tony Gibart. By the coalition's count, the 67 total deaths in 2009 was the highest in 10 years, exceeding the previous high of 61 in 2003. Excluding the suicides, the 52 other domestic violence homicides also were the highest in 10 years, exceeding the previous high of 45 in 2003. So, Moore accurately quoted the group's statistics, and those statistics have been consistently handled -- even though including the suicides increases the number. We checked a few other states for how they tally domestic violence deaths: ""There's no national standard way of reporting"" domestic violence deaths, but counting perpetrator suicides is not common, said Shellene Johnson, the Minnesota coalition's program manager. We also asked a state agency, the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance, if there are official statistics on domestic violence deaths. The answer is, not exactly. Homicides tracked by the office are not identified in terms of whether they were the result of domestic violence, and suicides are not tracked at all. The office can infer which homicides were domestic, based on the relationship between the offender and the victim as recorded in police reports, said spokeswoman Tami Jackson. But unlike the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the office does not look more closely into the circumstances of the deaths, she said. That brings us back to Moore's claim. The Milwaukee congresswoman said deaths in Wisconsin from domestic violence ""are at the highest in 10 years."" Moore accurately quoted statistics compiled by an advocacy group for 2009. It's important to note the group includes suicides committed by domestic violence perpetrators, which makes the death tally higher than it would otherwise be. Even so, either way you track it, the 2009 numbers were at a 10-year high." Claim: "In Wisconsin, ""deaths from domestic violence are at the highest in 10 years."
Solution:
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore says domestic violence deaths in Wisconsin are at their highest in 10 years