Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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
Solution: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick raised some eyebrows in March 2020 when he seemingly suggested during an appearance on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that exposing vulnerable, older members of the U.S. population to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic was a reasonable trade-off for getting the U.S. "back to work" and "back to living": Texas' lieutenant governor said that the U.S. should get back to work in the face of the global pandemic and that people over the age of 70, who the Centers for Disease Control says are at higher risk for the coronavirus, will "take care of ourselves." Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made the comments while appearing on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Patrick, 69, went on the program after President Donald Trump said that he wanted the country getting back to business in weeks, not months. "Let's get back to work. Let's get back to living. Let's be smart about it," Patrick said. "And those of us who are 70 plus, we'll take care of ourselves. But don't sacrifice the country." Patrick raised even more eyebrows the following month when, according to social media postings, he declared (in reference to the lockdowns prompted by the COVID-19 outbreak) that "there are more important things than living": Indeed, on April 20, 2020, Patrick again appeared as a guest on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" and echoed his earlier remarks on that program in questioning whether the threat posed by the coronavirus disease was exaggerated and worth the trade-off of shutting down businesses for a prolonged period of time: At the end of January, Dr. Fauci, who I have great respect for, said this wasn't a big issue. Three weeks later, we were gonna lose two million people. Another few weeks later, it was one- to two-hundred thousand. Now it's under 60,000, and we've had the wrong numbers, the wrong science. And I don't blame them, but let's face [the] reality of where we are. In Texas, we have 29 million people, [and] we've lost 495. Every life is valuable, but 500 people out of 29 million and we're locked down. And we're crushing the average worker, we're crushing small business, we're crushing the markets, we're crushing this country. And what I said when I was with you that night, there are more important things than living, and that's saving this country for my children, and my grandchildren, and saving this country for all of us. And I don't wanna die. Nobody wants to die. But we gotta take some risks, and get back in the game, and get this country back up and running. As NBC News reported of Patrick's controversial remarks, he is not alone in expressing the viewpoint that the importance of maintaining a functioning economy outweighed the dangers posed by the COVID-19 pandemic: Claim: "Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said COVID-19 social-distancing restrictions should be eased because ""there are more important things than living."
Solution:
The Texas Democratic Party said in a statement that Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott would put Texans at risk to enrich business interests.