You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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.
Why? 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.

New input: Paragraph: Legislators signed off on the special voting provisions for the 2020 elections shortly before their deadline to pass bills in an unusual session that was interrupted for several weeks because of concerns about the virus that causes COVID-19. Voters currently can request absentee ballots only if they provide an excuse for why they can't vote in person. Illness is one option, but the law isn't explicit on whether the illness excuse covers healthy voters concerned about catching or spreading COVID-19. Under the bill sent to Republican Gov. Mike Parson, people considered at-risk of the coronavirus those age 65 and older, living in a long-term care facility or with certain existing health problems could vote absentee without needing to have their ballot notarized. Anyone else could cast a mail-in ballot but would need to get it notarized. The bill passed with bipartisan support but received mixed reviews from both parties. Republicans said it doesn't include enough restrictions to ensure election security, and Democrats said it has too many rules. "When you are not wanting to go to the polls because you are either ill or fearful of becoming ill, but then you have to go get a notary to be able to not go to the polls, it doesn't really fix the problem," House Democratic Minority Leader Crystal Quade said. Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft on Friday said he no longer supported the measure after lawmakers stripped a contested photo ID requirement out of it. Lawmakers returned to the Capitol to work on the state budget and other policies days before Parson lifted his statewide stay-at-home order in early May. Members of the public were allowed in the Capitol to watch debate but were encouraged to stay home, prompting concern from some lawmakers about lack of public involvement in crafting major policy changes. Both lawmakers and visitors were quizzed on their health and had their temperatures checked before they could enter the building. "The work that we did here today I think was important enough that legislators made the decision that they were going to go ahead and come to the building to do work," Republican House Speaker Elijah Haahr said. "We understand the risks involved." Few lawmakers wore masks in the final days of session, and legislators frequently sat close to one another to vote. Lawmakers also faced pressure to act on crime legislation following a bloody 2019 and a violent start to 2020. The deaths of two men on Tuesday night were Kansas City's 63rd and 64th homicides this year. St. Louis police reported 53 homicides as of Friday. A bill headed to Parson's desk would create the crime of vehicle hijacking, expand the number of crimes that are considered dangerous felonies, ban probation for some crimes, and broaden what's considered a criminal street gang, along with increased penalties for taking part in gang activities. "This is going to help get the most violent habitual offenders off of the streets," Republican Rep. Nick Schroer said. The bill sparked outrage from House lawmakers who said it could reverse a drop in the state's prison population following a bipartisan push for criminal justice reform in recent years. "It doesn't make us safer," Republican Rep. Shamed Dogan said of longer prison sentences. "It sounds good in campaign ads, but it does not actually increase public safety. This has been shown time and time and time and time again by research." Longstanding efforts to make Missouri the last state to adopt a prescription drug database to track addictive medications failed. Republican skeptics in the Senate expressed no interest in compromising on the House-backed bill Friday after a feud between the two GOP-led chambers. At issue was a House provision that could thwart efforts to build a wind-energy power line that was slipped onto another Senate bill without senators noticing. Senators on Thursday hurriedly revoked a bill they had just passed, a highly unusual move, when they caught the amendment. Few bills made it across the finish line during lawmaker's roughly five month session, about 50 compared to more than 90 last year. The Republican-led Legislature this week did succeed in sending a new redistricting plan to the ballot that will ask voters to undo key parts of another redistricting measure they passed less than two years ago. Supporters wanted to accomplish the move this year because new state House and Senate districts will be drawn in 2021. ___ Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report. Claim: Missouri lawmakers OK mail-in voting on final day of work.
Solution:
Missouri lawmakers wrapped up their work Friday by passing bills allowing people to vote by mail because of the coronavirus and ramping up criminal penalties in response to an uptick in violent crime in the state's biggest cities.