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: "The new spate of political ads that have flooded the airwaves seem better suited to Halloween than the Election Day that follows it. With haunting music and ominous narration, they sound more like ads for horror movies than political commercials. One example is a radio advertisement from David Cicilline's campaign that begins with the narrator's somber warning: ""State Representative John Loughlin is running for Congress."" A worried-sounding woman chimes in: ""I heard his ideas are really out there."" ""How extreme is he?"" asks a second elderly voice, full of alarm. ""So extreme that John Loughlin voted to let people accused of domestic violence keep their guns."" Pause. ""Doesn't he know how dangerous that is?"" a third frightened voice wants to know. We here at PolitiFact aren't easily spooked; we just like to know the truth. So we tuned out the dramatic flourish and got to work checking out the claim. The vote Cicilline's ad talks about was on a 2005 bill in the Rhode Island General Assembly -- now a law -- that allows judges to require those subject to permanent domestic violence restraining orders to surrender their firearms. Rhode Island was the 41st state to enact this law, as part of a push by domestic violence advocates to protect victims. After multiple amendments that carved out exemptions for police officers and active duty military personnel to keep their service weapons while on duty, the Rhode Island bill made it to the floor in June 2005. Once there, it underwent several more changes, one of them spearheaded by Loughlin, a representative from Tiverton, who successfully advocated to exempt on-duty National Guard members from the provision as well. The House bill passed in a 46-20 vote on June 22, 2005, with Loughlin voting no. The Senate approved the same legislation days later and the bill was signed into law in early July. The problem with the Cicilline advertisement's claim is that it incorrectly says the bill applies to those ""accused of domestic violence."" A restraining order is actually a civil document that can be obtained without accusing the subject of a specific crime. ""It may be to prevent something from happening,"" explained Deb DeBare, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ""[The victim] may have been threatened or in fear of abuse, but no crime has been committed."" Nowhere does the 2005 bill suggest one must be accused of a crime to have the statute apply. Cicilline overstates the scope of the bill that Loughlin voted against. But he is correct to suggest that if Loughlin's side had prevailed, those subject to domestic violence restraining orders would be allowed to keep their guns. We asked Loughlin's campaign manager to explain why he voted against the 2005 bill. Her answer: ""John is a supporter of the Second Amendment and he voted against this bill because it was too broad and he was concerned that there was no distinction made between handguns and antique collectibles or family heirlooms."" That may be true, but it doesn't change the accuracy of Cicilline's statement." Claim: "David Cicilline Says ""John Loughlin voted to let people accused of domestic violence keep their guns."
Student:
Cicilline says Loughlin voted to let people accused of domestic violence keep their guns