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: The practice is prevalent in 28 African countries and parts of the Middle East and Asia, notably Yemen, Iraqi Kurdistan and Indonesia. There are several types including partial or total removal of the genitalia and narrowing of the vaginal opening. It is usually arranged by other women in the family for girls between infancy and 15, and performed by traditional cutters who use anything from razor blades to scissors or tin can lids. The United Nations passed a resolution in December urging countries to ban the practice that an estimated 100 to 140 million girls worldwide have been subjected to, putting them at risk of serious physical and psychological problems. But participants at an international meeting in Rome said new laws needed to be accompanied by education and discussion in traditional communities to help dispel misleading myths. "Religious leaders have to be involved, primarily Muslims and those from traditional religions. Opinion leaders have to be on board in this fight," Benin's Family and Social Affairs Minister Fatouma Amadou Djibril said. "We can uphold traditions but we have to find ways to replace this kind of practice with different rituals," she said. People often believe the practice is required by religion, but it is not mentioned in the Koran or any other religious text. Speakers at the Rome meeting said it was crucial to inform and educate the women who were perpetuating the practice, often because they worry they will be punished by ancestors in the afterlife for not performing it on relatives. "We need to explain to the women, because they don't understand how it can be prevented - it has such important societal implications," Ivory Coast Health Minister Raymonde Coffie Goudou said. "The traditional practitioner who uses the knife has value, she has a reputation, she is a woman with a role in the village - we have to understand her to deal with this," she said. The practice can cause severe bleeding, pain, shock, recurrent urinary tract infections, cysts and infertility. It increases the risk of labor complications and newborn deaths. The procedure itself can prove fatal. Speakers said cross-border cooperation and enforcement was also crucial for eradicating the practice, because cutters often move to countries where legislation is less strict so they can carry on working unhindered. Female genital mutilation has been banned by 20 of the 28 countries that practice it in Africa as well as many industrialized countries. But enforcement is usually weak and prosecutions are rare. Claim: Ministers urge religious chiefs to oppose genital mutilation.
Solution:
Religious leaders must convince women carrying out female genital mutilation that it is not required by scripture and it can cause infection, infertility or even death in young girls, African ministers said on Monday.