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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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: Health Ministry official Achmad Yurianto said there had been 106 new confirmed infections, taking the total number of cases in the Southeast Asian country to 2,092, with 10 new deaths. "We are still on high alert over infections that are taking place in the community that are caused by positive cases among people who are not showing symptoms," said Yurianto. Indonesia is relying mainly on social distancing policies to combat the virus since President Joko Widodo has opposed the harsh lockdown measures adopted in many neighboring countries. The country reported its first case of the virus a month ago, but epidemiologists say a relatively low level of testing means the number of cases may be vastly under-reported. Indonesia has almost doubled tests in the past week but has conducted only 7,896 tests in a country of more than 260 million people. According to a Reuters review of statistics from Jakarta's Department of Parks and Cemeteries, there were nearly 4,400 funerals in the city in March, 40 percent higher than any month since at least January, 2018. The city has been at the epicenter of COVID-19 infections in Indonesia, accounting for 1,028 cases and around 90 deaths, according to central government data, or roughly half the country's total for both. Jakarta's governor, Anies Baswedan, and some public health experts suspect the number of infections and deaths in the city has been significantly under-reported due to the low rates of testing. "It is extremely disturbing," Baswedan told Reuters on Friday, referring to the funeral statistics. "I'm struggling to find another reason than unreported COVID-19 deaths." Officials at the health ministry and at the presidential office did not respond to requests for comment. In an interview on Thursday, before Baswedan had made his comments, Yurianto defended the reporting and testing system and said the central government based its data on lab results using the accurate polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. Claim: Indonesia coronavirus cases top 2,000 amid concerns over data.
A:
Indonesia said on Saturday that coronavirus cases had topped 2,000 and deaths risen to 191, but doubts have been raised over official figures by data showing a big jump in funerals last month in the capital Jakarta.