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.
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
Example 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.
Example 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: A doctor checks a patient's blood pressure in a file photo. Lotrel, a pill combining two blood pressure drugs in one, was so effective at preventing heart attacks and other problems in a clinical trial that the study was stopped early, and its findings may change the way hypertension is treated, U.S. researchers said on Monday. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson The study compared the use of two different combinations of blood pressure drugs to see if combination pills could help patients get better control of their hypertension. While both pills helped control blood pressure, people who took the Novartis AG drug Lotrel a pill containing an angiotensin-converting enzyme, or ACE, inhibitor plus a calcium channel blocker had 20 percent fewer heart events such as heart attacks and strokes than those who took an ACE inhibitor and diuretic, or "water pill," combination. "For the 73 million patients in America with high blood pressure, we offer a new option to reduce heart attacks, strokes and heart-related death by 20 percent," said Dr. Kenneth Jamerson of the University of Michigan, who presented his findings at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago. He said the findings challenge current national guidelines for the treatment of high blood pressure, which call for patients who need medication to start out on a single pill, usually a diuretic, and to add other drugs only as needed. "We found a different strategy could reduce cardiovascular risk," Jamerson said in an interview. In all, 10,700 volunteers took a single tablet that includes two drugs. Both pills contained the ACE inhibitor benazepril, known by the brand name Lotensin. Lotrel combines benazepril with amlodipine besylate, the active ingredient in Pfizer Inc's calcium channel blocker Norvasc. In the other, benazepril was combined with hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic used to treat high blood pressure and fluid retention. Both combination drugs helped 73 percent of patients reach their blood pressure targets after six months. These results "shake the foundations of current recommendations and define a new standard," Dr. Eric Velazquez of Duke University Medical Center said in a statement. Millions of Americans take medications for hypertension but do not achieve control of their blood pressure. Reducing blood pressure can cut the risk of stroke, heart attack, heart failure and other conditions. The study was funded by Novartis. Claim: Combo pill cuts blood pressure and heart risks.
Solution: Lotrel, a pill combining two blood pressure drugs in one, was so effective at preventing heart attacks and other problems in a clinical trial that the study was stopped early, and its findings may change the way hypertension is treated, U.S. researchers said on Monday.