Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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."
Output: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
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.

New input case for you: A trader watches the electronic board on the floor of the Philippine Stock Exchange, which closed up 3.08 percent in today's trading in Makati City, Metro Manila November 14, 2008. REUTERS/John Javellana Researchers said a long-term study showed that working more than 11 hours a day increased the risk of heart disease by 67 percent, compared with working a standard 7 to 8 hours a day. They said the findings suggest that information on working hours used alongside other factors like blood pressure, diabetes and smoking habits could help doctors work out a patient's risk of heart disease. However, they also said it was not yet clear whether long working hours themselves contribute to heart disease risk, or whether they act as a "marker" of other factors that can harm heart health like unhealthy eating habits, a lack of exercise or depression. "This study might make us think twice about the old adage 'hard work won't kill you'," said Stephen Holgate, chair of the population and systems medicine board at Britain's Medical Research Council, which part-funded the study. The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal, followed nearly 7,100 British workers for 11 years. "Working long days is associated with a remarkable increase in risk of heart disease," said Mika Kivimaki of Britain's University College London, who led the research. He said it may be a "wake-up call for people who overwork themselves." "Considering that including a measurement of working hours in a (doctor's) interview is so simple and useful, our research presents a strong case that it should become standard practice," he said. Cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks and strokes are the world's largest killers, claiming around 17.1 million lives a year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Billions of dollars are spent every year on medical devices and drugs to treat them. The findings of this study support previous research showing a link between working hours and heart disease. But the scientists said hard workers should not necessarily be alarmed about their heart health. "Current evidence on (heart disease) prevention emphasizes the importance of focusing on the total risk, rather than single risk factors," Kivimaki told Reuters Health in an email. "People who work long hours should be particularly careful in following healthy diets, exercising sufficiently and keeping their blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood (sugar) within healthy limits." The research used data from a study called Whitehall II which has followed the health and wellbeing of more than 10,000 civil service workers in Britain since 1985. For this study, men and women who worked full time and had no heart disease were selected, giving 7,095 participants. The researchers collected data on heart risk factors like age, blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking and diabetes and also asked participants how many hours they worked including work during the day and work brought home on an average weekday. During the 11-year study, 192 participants had heart attacks. Those who worked 11 hours or more a day were 67 percent more likely to have a heart attack than those with fewer hours.
Output:
Working long hours? Watch out for your heart.