You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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.
Why? 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.

New input: Paragraph: No mention in this lengthy story of the costs of the two procedures or insurance coverage. Readers need this information, and the fact that the duodenal switch may not be covered by most insurance. The total cost of gastric bypass is about $20,000. The story makes clear that the duodenal switch surgery, in comparison with the bariatric surgery, may give patients greater weight loss in pounds but the value of that reduction is not clear. The additional information from the paper published by Livingston demonstrating no advantage to surgery over medical management was very useful. The story shines in its details about the delicate weighing of risk vs. benefits for weight-loss surgery in general, and then for the duodenal vs. gastric bypass method in particular. Some readers might find it confusing that the story includes two separate publications about weight-loss surgery. The story leads with the small study comparing duodenal with gastric bypass, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, but then delves into a larger Veterans Administration study from the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at the longer-term results of all surgeries for obesity. We salute Reuters for providing the context and the controversy within medical practice, and quoting a principal investigator on the VA study, Edward Livingstone, who wrote an editorial that appeared in the Annals beside the duodenal paper. The story reports on a very small study just 58 patients in total and 29 received the duodenal surgery. Only one comment addressed the quality of the evidence: "Larger, longer-term studies are still needed to show whether the extra weight loss with duodenal switch" improves the health and lengthens the lives of obese patients, explained lead researcher Torgeir Sovik. We would have liked a reminder of the preliminary nature of the conclusions higher up in the story. This story does a good job of probing territory that is under-explored in most media accounts about obesity treatment. It poses the questions of long-term quality of life and life expectancy post treatment. Could obesity itself be less life-threatening than some of the radical treatments aimed at treating it? In addition to quoting the lead author of the Annals article, we liked the balance provided by Edward Livingston in his comments about both the duodenal switch procedure and his comments about the value of surgery in general over medical management. The story concentrates on patients receiving weight-loss surgery, and does not discuss non-surgical alternatives at much length. It does mention the study by Livingston questioning the value of surgery over medical management. Behavior coaching, diet and exercise are all potential treatments for obesity. The story explains that duodenal switch is "less common" and that "Duodenal switch is not a popular procedure." In a 2008 study, it accounted for just 1 percent of weight-loss, or bariatric, surgeries done in the U.S., and 5 percent in Europe." The story makes it clear that the duodenal switch procedure has been around for a number of years but is rarely used. No, it does not rely on a news release. Claim: Rare surgery brings more weight loss, more risks
Solution:
While the story begins with a small research study about two different methods of weight-loss surgery, it expands and includes context about wider debate over whether shedding pounds improves health and life expectancy. We do wish it had included cost and insurance coverage information. Size matters. Today's obese Americans face higher risks of heart disease, diabetes and stroke because of their weight. But in this story, important questions are raised about the risks posed by one type of weight-loss surgery known as duodenal switch surgery. An estimated 220,000 Americans had some sort of weight-loss surgery in 2009. Besides the suggestion that this specific surgical procedure may pose inordinate risk, the story also raises overall questions about whether weight-loss surgery has been overhyped. "We really don't know if there is a survival benefit" from weight-loss surgery, said one expert. The size of weight loss may not predict the improvement of health to follow, in a simple relationship. As with many clinical controversies, it may take doctors a long time to establish guidelines for the risks vs. the benefits of this sort of surgery.