You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

It is too early in the development of this experimental technology to begin talking about what the price of such a system might be. But readers would have gotten a clearer idea of the preliminary state of this work if the story had noted that the brain mapping, device implantation, sophisticated equipment and hundreds of hours of training probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This article included important caveats about the limited actions that the patient was able to perform, and made it clear that this device was highly experimental. But most of these details are mentioned only nearthe end of the story. We might have given the story a Satisfactory rating if the headline and opening paragraphs had matched the tone of these later sections. However, the overly broad claims at the top of the story overwhelm the cautionary details. Also, the story shouldhave more clearly pointed out that (as a Nature news article specifically noted) this approach may not work for people who, unlike this patient, don't still have at least some ability to move their shoulders and elbows. As a result, the story implies that this experiment is relevant to a far broader group of people than the researchers claim. Even if the technology is experimental and only tested on one patient, thestory should have included some discussion of risks of the implantation surgery and the implant itself. We will give the story a Satisfactory rating here because it's made clear that this is a study of one person. Readers who pay attention all the way to the end are indeed warned about how far this line of work is from producing a useful option for real-world use. However, the story would have been better ifinstead of boasting that the patient can play "Guitar Hero"the headline and opening paragraphs had been clearer that he could produce a limited range of finger and hand motions in painstakingly prepared laboratory conditions that, rather than revealing a useful device, demonstrate that the goal of a useful device is probably not impossible someday. Paralysis from spinal cord injuries is a devastating condition, so the story is not overstating the situation facing patients. The story includes strong context and cautionary statements from two independent sources. However, we cannot give it a Satisfactory rating because it doesn't tell readers that the researchers have an interest in patents for the hardware and software they are developing. These financial interests were clearly noted in the Nature journal article and should have been included in the story. This experimental device does appear to allow this patient to do things that no other treatment can. However, the main achievement is a proof of concept. Unfortunately, the story makes the difference between his baseline function and his movements in the laboratory appear bigger than it is. The story is clear that this device is in laboratory testing. The comments from independent sources at the very end of the story help describe the long and uncertain road ahead for researchers. The story describes the specific new achievement of this experimental device: sensing electrical patterns in the brain and then translating them to electrical stimuli that trigger appropriate muscle movements. The story includes comments from independent sources and does not rely solely on a news release.
Output:
A Paralysed Man Can Play "Guitar Hero" Using A Computer That Reads His Thoughts