Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: A pharmacist counts pills in a pharmacy in Toronto in this January 31, 2008 file photo. Sales of prescription drugs in the United States grew by just 3.8 percent in 2007, marking the lowest growth rate since 1961, according to data compiled by IMS Health. REUTERS/Mark Blinch Total U.S. prescription drug sales reached $286.5 billion last year with slowing growth blamed on factors including patent expirations of lucrative medicines that opened the door to cheaper generic versions. Other reasons cited by IMS in its annual U.S. Pharmaceutical Market Performance Review were fewer new product approvals, safety concerns, and the leveling of year-over-year growth from the Medicare Part D program. The 3.8 percent growth rate compares to 8 percent growth seen in 2006. "The moderating growth trend that began in 2001 resumed last year following the one-time impact on market growth in 2006 from the implementation of Medicare Part D," Murray Aitken, IMS's senior vice president for healthcare insight, said in a statement. Cholesterol drugs, such as Pfizer Inc's Lipitor, once again led all therapy groups with prescription sales of $18.4 billion in 2007 despite a 15.4 percent decline in sales, primarily due to the availability of cheaper generics. Acid reflux medicines known as proton pump inhibitors, including AstraZeneca's Nexium, ranked second with prescription sales of $14.1 billion and 2.8 percent growth. Antipsychotics, such as Eli Lilly and Co's Zyprexa, overtook antidepressants as the third largest therapeutic class with $13.1 billion in sales and a 12.1 percent growth rate, according to IMS, which provides industry data on drug prescriptions and sales. Brand name drugs with some $17 billion in sales lost patent protection in 2007, helping drive prescription volume growth of 10 percent for generic medicines. Generic drugs claimed 67.3 percent of U.S. prescriptions dispensed in 2007, IMS found. IMS is forecasting compound annual U.S. pharmaceutical sales growth of 3 percent to 6 percent through 2012, noting that new biotech medicines and vaccines as well as the expected launch of a handful of drugs with at least $1 billion a year potential will partially offset major patent expirations. Some $13 billion in branded products are likely to start facing generic competition this year, IMS said. "The U.S. pharmaceutical market has entered a new era one characterized by more modest growth due to the continuing impact of new generics products, fewer and more narrowly indicated novel medications and closer scrutiny of safety issues," Aitken said. Claim: U.S. drug sales grew at slowest rate since 1961: IMS.
Answer:
Sales of prescription drugs in the United States grew by just 3.8 percent in 2007, marking the lowest growth rate since 1961, according to data compiled by IMS Health.