Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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
Output: 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.
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 case for you: Paragraph: The story states that the FlexBar costs between $16 and $33. It could have compared this cost with that of some other treatment options, which can be quite expensive. The story makes no attempt to quantify the benefits associated with the FlexBar, and we don't think linking to the study abstract is sufficient to satisfy this criterion (especially when the full text of the published study is also available online). The average reader can't be expected to interpret differences on a "visual analog pain scale" or "DASH questionnaire" without some explanation of what these measures mean. The FlexBar is probably safer than some other commonly used treatments for elbow pain such as steroid injections. However, the story doesn't really address safety, except to say thattraditional hand weights can sometimes make tennis elbow pain worse (and by implication, that the FlexBar won't). While this isn't a major concern of ours, we thinkit's probably premature, based on a single 21-personstudy,to suggest that the FlexBar is safer than other noninvasive approaches to treating tennis elbow. The story cites a study which documented improved strength and less pain among patients who used the FlexBar device. Although it links to an abstract of the study presented at a conference,the story made no attempt to evaluate the quality of this research or address its limitations. On the positive side, the study was a randomized,controlled comparisonof adding the FlexBarto a traditional physical therapy programfor tennis elbow a relatively strong design. But the study's very small sample size (21 patients) and short duration (7weeks) are important limitations that should have been mentioned. Tennis elbow frequently relapses, so it is unclear if the short term relief reported here will translate into a longer-term benefit for patients. The story did not overstate the consequences of tennis elbow, which can causedebilitating pain thatinterferes with work and activities. The story notes the involvement of the FlexBar manufacturer in the study that is referenced. It also quotes an independentphysical therapist who suggests there are other ways to achieve the effect attributed to the FlexBar. The story mentions other treatment approaches to tennis elbow, including ultrasound, strengthening and stretching exercises, cross-friction massage, heat and ice. It is clear from the story that the FlexBar is commercially available. The story earns credit for noting that there are other ways to achieve the effects attributed to the FlexBar (as an expertsource points out, "There's a variety of methods you can use to achieve the strengthening technique."). However,the story didn't satisfactorilyaddress what is new and potentially important about this treatmentwhich is that it allows patients to do isolated eccentric exercises for tennis elbow at home. The only way patients could do this previously was in the clinic using an expensivemachine. An at-home treatment would make this kind of therapy much more affordable and easier to access, which mightalso make it more effective. Nonetheless, we'll give the brief blog post the benefit of the doubt since it ended with the note:"The FlexBar is easy to use and you can do it at home." This story wasn't based on a news release. Claim: A Rubber Twist On Treating Tennis Elbow Pain
Output:
The story said that a study showed the new treatment improved strength and decreased pain from tennis elbow but it never said by how much or how this improvement was measured. We also never learn about important limitations in the study design that should have been mentioned. A link tothe study abstract provided in the story wasn't sufficient to address ourconcernson these points. As this story points out, tennis elbow isn't confined to the country club set and can do a lot more than throw off your serve. Itcan also directly threaten the livelihood of painters and other manual laborers whose movements are restricted by debilitating pain. Since there is no singletreatment that is broadly effective for this condition, the identification of new therapeutic approaches, such as the FlexBar discussed in this story, is an important researchpriority.