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: "That was the ultimate goal: to drink a beer by myself," said Sorto, a 34-year-old from Los Angeles who became a quadriplegic after a 2002 gunshot wound. Things may be looking up for Sorto and others with similar disabilities. Scientists on Thursday described a better way to harness mind power to move prosthetic limbs. Microelectrodes, implanted in the part of the brain that controls a person's intention to perform a movement, enabled a patient to fluidly guide a robotic arm, they said. In a study published in the Science journal, surgeons at Keck Medicine of the University of Southern California placed a pair of small electrode arrays into Sorto's posterior parietal cortex, or PPC. These neural prosthetics were then connected to computers that processed Sorto's brain signals and determined his intent, allowing him to control a robotic arm mounted to a table nearby, or a computer cursor. "Mr. Sorto was able to learn to grasp different objects, play 'rock-paper-scissors,' play video games, drink a beverage," said California Institute of Technology neuroscientist Richard Andersen, who led the study. "The PPC is a rich source of signals that can be used to determine the goals of a paralyzed subject," said Andersen. "These signals can be used to control 'smart' robotics and computers that can work out the details of movement of external devices such as a robotic limb." Neural prosthetic devices have previously been implanted in paralyzed patients' motor cortex, the part of the brain that directly controls body movement. However, while those patients could control a robotic limb, movement was delayed and jerky. Implanting the neuroprosthetics in the part of the brain that controls the intent to move yielded a more natural motion. Sorto said he had a few tasks lined up. "On the top of the list is that I want to be able to groom myself. I want to be able to brush my teeth by myself," he said. And he was indeed able to drink his own beer. "When I was able to do it with the robotic arm, it just reassured me that somehow in the future, people with my disability will be able to have some sort of independence," said Sorto. "And with that will come some sort of self-pride." Claim: Mind-controlled prosthetic limbs allow precise, smooth movement.
Student:
More than a decade after becoming paralyzed from the neck down, Erik Sorto has been unable to perform even the simplest of daily tasks.