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.

Example input: 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
Example output: 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.
Example 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.
Q: Paragraph: "A one month supply of Lipozene can cost up to $90 as reported in this story. This article also pointed out that other companies sell similar supplementsfor a much lower cost. This story is clear and accurate in its overall message thatthere appear to be no weight-loss benefits from taking Lipozene. This story uses expert opinion to point out the severe diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress would be adverse effects of taking the very large doses of the glucomannan fiber in Lipozene that might help someone to lose weight. This story also noted that glucomannan is not FDA approvedas aweight-loss supplement. This authors of this story should be commended for their thorough research in medical literature and in consultation with independent experts to verify the lack of evidence supporting Lipozene's weight loss claims. The headline of this story ""Fiber-based Lipozene's weight-loss claims rest on thin evidence"" sums up the lack of credible evidence on whichLipozene bases its weight-loss claims. This story does a good job at pointing out that Lipozene's ""clinically proven"" ""fat-reducing power "" does not appear to be based on any data published in the medical literature. Perhaps this claim is based upon a small study reporting that individuals taking a fiber supplement similar to Lipozene on a very low calorie diet lost weight. Mathematically the amount of weight lost would be accounted for by diet alone. This story debunksLipozeneclaim that people can loseweight without dieting or exercisisngby citingcurrent medical opinion, and common sense. The story does point out that the Federal Trade Commission has taken legal action against the Obesity Research Institute for making false claims about its other gucomannan containing products. As a footnote,the Obesity Research Institutedoes not appear to conduct any research despite its ""lofty"" name. This story does not engage in disease mongering butclearly points out that themakers of Lipozene do. The parent company, Obesity Research Institute,capitalizeson thepublic's desire for a quick fix weight loss pill. This story took a well balanced approach to presenting both sides of the Lipozene story. Beneficial claims by the manufacturer were balanced with comments by two independent experts who expressed the opposite opinion. The story also tried unsuccessfully to verify claims that could not be otherwise verified with the manufacturer. The only significant omission ofthe story was notincluding basic information on weight-loss. Thisstory briefly mentions diet and exercise, but could more clearly state these are the proven ways to lose weight. Also, abrief sentence about gastric bypass surgeryin cases of severe obesity could have easily been included. There is no shortage of 'get thin quick products' being aggressively marketed in the media and widely available in drugstores trhoughout the country. Lipozene is no excpetion, as this story points out at the onset. This story makes it clear that weight-loss supplements including Lipozene are common place. We are confident the story did not rely on a news release." Claim: Fiber-based Lipozene's weight-loss claims rest on thin evidence
A:
Lipozene, a weight-loss supplement containing a type of fiber called glucomannan, is being promoted as a magic bullet for weight loss. The evidence supporting this claim is weak at best as aptly indicated in this story's headline. This story was well researched and did agood jobevaluating and refutingLipozene's weight-loss claims based upon review of themedical literature and by interviews with independent experts. Lipozene'smanufacturer, the Obesity Research Institute, did not respond to requests for justification of these claims. As pointed out in this article, the Obesity Research Institutepaid a large settlement in response tothe Federal Trade Commission charge that they made false and misleadingclaims about two of its other products containing the same fiber compound as Lipozene. This story did a very good job of documenting its "bottom line" that despite aggressive marketing there is no evidence that Lipozene is a "weight-loss breakthorugh". This story is credible and was well done.