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
Example 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.
Example 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: Days before the 72-year-old woman is released from prison, looming fears about whether she remains a threat and calls to keep her off the streets bring up deep-rooted questions about mental-health treatment in the nation's prisons, an expert said. And details of the crime still horrify Barzee's niece, Tina Mace. "It just makes you ill. How could anyone do that?" she said. Her aunt played the organ at her wedding decades ago, before Barzee joined Mitchell as he acted on his so-called revelations from God. Like Smart, Mace is alarmed by the surprise announcement this week by Utah authorities, who said they had miscalculated her aunt's sentence and would release her from prison on Sept. 19 "From what I know, no family can take her in or would take her in," Mace said. Federal agents have found a place for Barzee to live when she starts her five-year supervised release, said Eric Anderson, the deputy chief U.S. Probation Officer for Utah. He declined comment on whether she will be in a private home or a facility, but she "will not be homeless," he said. Barzee has served the 15-year sentence she got in a plea deal the year she testified against street preacher Brian David Mitchell, her then-husband who kidnapped the girl from her bedroom at knifepoint. During her months in captivity, Smart said the older woman sat nearby and encouraged her husband as he raped the teenager. Smart is now a 30-year-old speaker and activist who said Thursday she's deeply concerned that Barzee remains a threat, citing her refusal to cooperate with mental-health treatment in prison and reports that she may still harbor Mitchell's beliefs. Smart called for authorities to consider carefully whether inmates have been successfully treated before they are released. But large-scale changes requiring rehabilitation could pose troubling questions, said Rebecca Weiss, an assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "We could be incarcerating someone indefinitely who has served their sentence," she said. Treating the disproportionate number of people with mental illness in U.S. prisons many of whom are not violent is among the system's biggest challenges. While there is a need to protect the public, inmates also have the right to refuse treatment. "The degree to which our prisons succeed in rehabilitation is questionable," Weiss said. "We're putting a lot on a system that is overloaded with fairly unclear goals." Repeat violent sex offenders can be civilly committed in the federal system, but that requires a series of evaluations and a judge's decision that they pose an imminent risk, Anderson said. Barzee's lawyer has maintained she's not a threat. Attorney Scott Williams did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Prison officials declined to discuss her behavior behind bars or relay an interview request. She was treated at the Utah State Hospital for about five years following her arrest. She testified in 2010 against Mitchell. Barzee described a "hellish" first year of marriage that eased after she "learned to be submissive and obedient," and his later pronouncement that it was "God's will" they sell their possessions and travel the country wearing long robes. Eventually, Mitchell kidnapped then-14-year-old Smart, forced her into a polygamous "marriage" and raped her almost daily. She was found nine months later, while walking with Barzee and Mitchell on a street in the Salt Lake City suburb of Sandy. Barzee's testimony against him seemed like a turning point, but her mental state appears to have changed in her subsequent years in federal and state prisons, Mace said. Mitchell is serving a life sentence. Looking back on the captivity, Smart said Thursday that she believes the older woman who treated her as a "handmaiden" and a "slave" was manipulated by her husband at times. "But she, in her own right, abused me as much as he did." Claim: Niece: Family won't take in Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper.
Solution: Once an accomplished organ player in Salt Lake City, Wanda Barzee became a disturbing figure for members of her own family after she helped in the 2002 kidnapping of then-teenager Elizabeth Smart.