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: It was joined by 22 states, the District of Columbia and two cities in suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, building on a similar lawsuit it filed in September a day after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration withdrew California's waiver. The latest lawsuit challenges the EPA's attempt to revoke part of a waiver it granted California in 2013 permitting the state to impose its greenhouse gas and zero emission vehicle standards. It asks the court to rule that California's rules are protected under the federal Clean Air Act. The coming court battle will help mold a major aspect of the nation's climate policy because 13 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted California's standards. Federal law generally sets the rules for how much vehicles can pollute. But California has been allowed to impose tougher rules since the 1970s because it has the most cars and problems meeting air quality standards. The EPA said it doesn't comment on pending litigation, but Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said in September that the stricter rules were making vehicles more expensive and less safe because consumers had difficulty buying newer, safer vehicles. "California's Clean Car Standards are achievable. They not only work, many other states around the country have chosen to adopt them," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, said Republican President Donald Trump "continues to weaponize federal agencies in his war against public health and clean air." He noted several major automakers this year voluntarily agreed to the state's regulations despite the effort the roll them back. The filing also asks the court to review NHTSA's September decision. Joining California in the lawsuit are attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia; as well as the cities of Los Angeles and New York. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring criticized the administration for not only rolling back federal climate change efforts, but "threatening states' rights to implement their own efforts to reduce carbon emissions and encourage clean car jobs and technology." ___ This story has been corrected to reflect that 22 states and the District of Columbia have joined California's suit, not 23 states.
Solution: 23 states widen challenge to Trump administration car rules.