Teacher: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
"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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Reason: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

Now, solve this instance: The accord announced on Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice resolves allegations that CareFusion violated the federal False Claims Act by paying $11.6 million to a doctor to promote its ChloraPrep product to healthcare providers. That doctor, Charles Denham, received the kickbacks while serving as co-chair of the safe practices committee of the nonprofit National Quality Forum, which makes recommendations on healthcare practices, the Justice Department said. "Corrupting the standard-setting process through kickbacks can affect the healthcare treatment choices that doctors and hospitals may make for patients," Stuart Delery, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, said in a statement. The lawsuit also claimed that CareFusion promoted ChloraPrep from September 2009 through August 2011 for unapproved uses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved ChloraPrep to prepare patients' skin for surgery or injections. CareFusion said on Thursday that it set aside funds for the settlement in the first quarter of 2013. Chief Executive Officer Kieran Gallahue said the San Diego-based company is pleased to settle, and has made "significant investments" to improve its quality and compliance practices, including in sales and marketing. Denham could not immediately be reached for comment. The accord resolved a whistleblower lawsuit first brought in September 2010 by Cynthia Kirk, a former vice president of regulatory affairs at a CareFusion infection prevention unit. She will receive $3.26 million through the settlement, which along with the lawsuit was unsealed this week by the federal court in Kansas City, Kansas. In afternoon trading, CareFusion shares were up 81 cents at $41.12. The case is U.S. ex rel. Kirk v. CareFusion Corp et al, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, No. 10-02492.
Student:
CareFusion to pay $40 million to settle U.S. kickbacks lawsuit.