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: Continental AG announced this week that it has given $5 million to Wildlife Mississippi to finance that organization's purchase of 1,000 acres along Bayou Pierre west of Hazlehurst in Copiah County. One parcel was purchased from a timber company and one was bought from an individual, said James Cummins, executive director of Wildlife Mississippi The waterway, which empties into the Mississippi River in Claiborne County, is the only home of a fish listed as federally threatened, the bayou darter. Cummins said his group plans to improve habitat by planting native hardwood trees on part of the land which is now planted in pines, and by removing invasive species from areas where there are now hardwoods. The initial restoration work is expected to take place over the winter and spring. Wildlife Mississippi already owns an adjoining 320 acres. "What we're trying to do is build a larger conservation area around Bayou Pierre," Cummins said. The stream is plagued by erosion because the channel of the Mississippi is deepening, and Bayou Pierre is carving out a deeper channel of its own to get down to the lower level of the river it feeds into. That's causing erosion of Bayou Pierre's banks, harming the stream's water quality and further stressing the bayou darter. The problem has been going on for years, exacerbated by agriculture and gravel mining in the Bayou Pierre watershed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been trying to organize landowners to improve the situation, and Wildlife Mississippi's entry is one response. Cummins said Wildlife Mississippi was approached by Continental even before the company announced its $1.45 billion tire plant near Clinton in February, and Continental said the transaction was completed in April. "It's important for Continental to work with local environmental groups to conserve the areas where we're investing," Continental Project Manager Grant Bovim said in a statement. Continental ultimately plans 2,500 jobs at the Hinds County site. Wildlife Mississippi will retain the land and is considering public access to the tract in the future. Cummins said the group would like to encourage canoeing and kayaking in Bayou Pierre. ___ Follow Jeff Amy at: http://twitter.com/jeffamy . Read his work at http://bigstory.ap.org/author/jeff-amy . Claim: Tire company gives $5M to protect land around Bayou Pierre.
Solution:
A $5 million donation from the state's newest major industry will help preserve an environmentally stressed waterway in southwest Mississippi.