Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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
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.
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: A study showed that the drink, which works by trapping gas in foods to make people feel full, worked even better than the company's Slim-Fast weight-loss drink, they said. The researchers, who presented their findings at the 2008 European Congress on Obesity, said the company has patented the technology. "The technology is now available for the brand to use in future formats," said David Mela, a Unilever nutritionist who worked on the study. "The food maintains the bulk, much of which is air that helps you maintain that full feeling." Obesity is a big problem and big business. About 400 million people are classified as obese, putting them at higher risk of diseases like type 2 diabetes and heart diseases, according to the World Health Organization. This has in part spurred companies like Unilever, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Sara Lee and others to turn to healthier products with a whole range of so-called health and wellness foods. "If you look at western populations, a (large number) of adults are overweight," said Gert Meijer, an executive at Unilever's research and development division. "In terms of the amount of people who might be interested in this product, it could be huge." In the Unilever study, the researchers tested their milkshake on 24 volunteers who were given either the new drink or a serving of regular Slim-Fast at breakfast. People who had the milkshake reported that they were significantly fuller when asked at different intervals over a four-hour time period. The researchers found that a half-sized serving of the milkshake also suppressed hunger. "We are clearly talking about hours," said Sergei Melnikov, a physical chemist who helped develop the technology. "It is an effect that lasts for an hour or two or longer." The milkshake is designed to trap gas in the food after consumption, preventing it from dissolving in the mouth as happens with foods like whipped cream, and cutting appetite. To do this the team engineered the fats, proteins and fibers in the food until reaching the right mix to trap the gas a technology that might appear in other Unilever foods, the researchers said. "I would say this is not limited to liquids," Melnikov said. "It could be used in other food forms." Claim: Unilever says new milkshake helps control appetite.
Student:
A new weight loss drink that tastes like a milkshake significantly reduces appetite and could soon join Unilever's $400 million Slim-Fast weight-loss brand, the company's researchers said on Wednesday.