Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: The story does include a discussion of price, reporting that a fluoride varnish treatment can cost $23 to $55, while a filling can cost $86 to $606. That's enough to be rated Satisfactory. However, the story also should have stated that those numbers aren't a head-to-head comparison, since the varnish treatment must be repeated many times over many yearswhich would add up. In fact,a cost-effectiveness analysis done by one of the quoted experts concluded the "Caries Management System" he advocates costs almost $1,800 for every cavity or lost tooth prevented. While the story includes links to some studies that report specific results, the only number reported in the story is a reduction in adult tooth fillings of 30 to 50 percent. But without any absolute numbers, this number isn't useful. Is it a cavity a year? A cavity a decade? The story refers to people at "high risk" for cavities, but does not define what that term means. Without some anchoring in absolute numbers, all readers are left with is a vague sense that preventive treatment is "better" for some people, without pinning down how much better or for whom. Fluoride for dental health has been extensively studied for decades and is considered safe, so we'll file this rating as not applicable to the story. But, as some dentists might point out, there is an argument to be made for discussing one knownthough minorrisk: Some people living in areas with naturally high levels of fluoride in their water may experience tooth discoloration or other issues if they are given additional fluoride treatment. The story portrays the evidence for fluoridetreatments as clear and convincing, when there are actually just a few studies, and a lot of expert opinion. That's not to say the experts quoted in the story are wrong, but the story elevates beliefs to the level of evidence-based conclusions. Cavities in adults can cause serious health problems if left untreated, and any new effective treatment or trends in this area is worthy of press coverage. However, the studiesdiscussedin the story focused on a relatively small group of people with unusually high risk of tooth decayand so these results may not apply to the adult population at large, which this piece implies. The story quotes a number of sources discussing this trend in dentistry, instead of just relying on one dentist. But the piece would be more balanced had it included at least one source pointing out that some of the techniques advocated in the story could be overkill or wasteful for many people who are at just average risk for tooth decay. As the piece was written, all the sources are very rosy about more aggressive preventive dental care. We also found via an internet search that sourceJohn Featherstonehas accepted consultation fees from dental companies that make products for these purposes. However, since he wasn't specifically endorsing one of these productsin this story,we'llgive this a pass. The story does not quantify the benefits of these new preventive treatments, or similar approaches, so it fails to give readers a useful comparison with standard dental care or advice for most adultssuch asfluoride toothpastes, community water fluoridation, flossing, and mouthwashes. It is clear that the treatments mentioned in the story are widely available, and we were pleased to see the story went a step further and let us know how insurance impacts availability. The story reports that the concepts are not new, and that fluoride varnishes have normally been the purview of pediatric dentistry, but are now catching on among adult dentists. However, it never really explains why practice would be changing nowdid research spur this change? There is a reference to "more effective preventive techniques," but it's not clear what that means, and how a reader might act on that. This piece doesn't appear to rely on a news release; the reporter interviewed a number of experts and referred to several publications.
Student:
No-Drill Dentistry: Fluoride Treatments Can Prevent Cavities In Adults