Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. Example
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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: "The Road We've Traveled -- a 17-minute film from President Barack Obama's re-election campaign -- touts his achievements in health care, saying that the Affordable Care Act has substantially expanded coverage for millions of Americans. We're checking several claims from the film, including one that ""2.5 million young adults now have coverage."" The law requires insurers to provide dependent coverage for children up to age 26 on all policies. The goal is to prevent young adults from becoming uninsured when their parental or college plans would otherwise run out. This provision took effect in September 2010. We found support for the film's statistic in a Health and Human Services analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey, a longstanding survey conducted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey found an 8.3 percentage point increase in insurance coverage for the 19-to-25 age group between the third quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2011 -- from 64.4 percent to 72.7 percent. The analysis then multiplied 8.3 percent by 29.7 million -- the number of people nationally in that age group -- to come up with the number 2.5 million. We'll note that the original CDC study, using slightly different methodology, found a smaller number. Using annual and semi-annual figures rather than quarterly numbers, the number grew by 1.3 million. The HHS analysis makes the case that, for various technical reasons, its method is superior. We think both estimates are reasonable, and while the 2.5 million figure got more traction in the media, we also think it's worth noting that the underlying federal study offers an alternative -- and smaller -- number. In essence, the film cherry-picks the higher number. So the statement is accurate but needs clarification, which fits our definition of ." Claim: "Because of the new health care law, ""2.5 million young adults now have coverage."
Answer:
Barack Obama film touts coverage for 2.5 million young Americans