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.
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."
Example solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example explanation: 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.

Problem: "For weeks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been using floor speeches to target Charles and David Koch, the industrialist brothers with libertarian political views who have spent generously -- and gotten others to spend generously -- to support conservative candidates and issues. In an April 2, 2014, floor speech, Reid criticized a House budget proposal drawn up by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., saying it reflected the principles of the Koch brothers and would lower taxes on the wealthy. ""Is $80 billion of personal wealth for the Koch brothers enough?"" Reid asked. ""I think most everyone would say yes, it's enough. But not the Koch brothers. They want more. They're the richest people in the world. Individually they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."" We wondered: Is that correct? Reid's office didn't respond to an inquiry for this story, but we were able to find some answers. It's tricky to say definitively who is richer than who, because of privacy issues and fluctuations in market values. But the longstanding yardstick for measuring the world's richest people comes from Forbes magazine, which publishes both the Forbes 400 (a list of the 400 richest Americans) and the World's Billionaires (which tracks more than 1,600 billionaires across the globe). Currently, Charles and David Koch, when measured as individuals, are tied for sixth place on the international list, with $40.7 billion each. Combined, their net worth is $81.4 billion, which is higher than the highest-ranking individual on the list -- Microsoft founder Bill Gates, at $77.8 billion. (A third brother, William, has long been estranged from Charles and David, and media accounts about the brothers' giving patterns generally do not consider him to be part of the ""Koch brothers."" William is worth an additional $4 billion.) So are Charles and David Koch No. 1 in the world? They're close--but not quite. Reid ignored one other family that, collectively, has greater net worth than the Kochs: the Waltons, the heirs to the Walmart fortune. Here's the rundown, in descending order of their ranking on the Forbes international list: 9. Christy Walton and family: $38 billion 10. Jim Walton: $35.6 billion 11. Alice Walton: $35.1 billion 12. S. Robson Walton: $35.1 billion 305. Ann Walton Kroenke: $5.0 billion 367. Nancy Walton Laurie: $4.2 billion Together, the six Waltons have a net worth of $153 billion -- a little less than double the holdings of Charles and David Koch. So if Reid is going to put together the Koch brothers, it makes sense to combine the wealth of the Walton family as well. And the Walton family's wealth is bigger. Our ruling Reid said the Koch brothers are ""the richest people in the world. Individually they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."" If you look at families -- which is what Reid is essentially doing -- then Charles and David Koch rank second internationally to six members of the Walton family, at least according to Forbes. That's still pretty close to the top of the list."
Solution: "The Koch brothers are ""the richest people in the world. Individually, they're only fifth. Put them together they're the richest in the world."