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: In the interview, Bolsonaro also stuck to the government's assertion that a Greek freighter caused the oil spill scattered across beaches along 1,300 miles (2,100 kilometers) of coastline even after the shipowner's denial of any leakage from its vessel. "All signs point to this Greek cargo ship. All of them," he told Record TV, adding that the leak, "by all accounts looks like it was criminal." Brazil's government has been striving to investigate the cause of the spill that has hit 321 beaches along the northeast coast since early September, hurting fishing and tourism. Authorities have described the spill as one of the country's worst environmental disasters. The crude's density renders it invisible from above, making it hard to track its origin or to have a clear picture of the amount of oil yet to reach Brazil's coast. Some 4,000 tons of oil has been collected from northeastern beaches thus far, according to a statement Sunday from the Navy, Brazil's environmental regulator, and the national petroleum agency. "To say how much oil there still is very difficult to say," Commander Leonardo Puntel of the Brazilian Navy said at a press conference on Monday. "Since the oil is underwater, we don't know if there's still a lot or a little. There is effectively no correct and accurate way to monitor these oil spots," he said, adding that they have seen a decrease in oil arriving onto beaches in recent days. He called the disaster "unprecedented." "There is no case in the world of a large-scale oil spill where the origins are totally unknown. This case has no parallel, we don't know who polluter is," Puntel said. Brazil's defense minister, Gen. Fernando Azevedo e Silva, also stressed how challenging it is to calculate the spill's scope. "It is not detectable by satellite. ... It is imperceptible. We do not know how much will still come," he said. David Zee, an oceanographer at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that the 4,000 tons of collected oil is "just the tip of the iceberg," both because the cleanup effort is mostly limited to sandy beaches in populated areas and also because a large portion of spilled oil is likely spread deep beneath the ocean's surface. Furthermore, when currents bring oil to sandy shores, it is relatively easy to collect, while is nearly impossible to remove from corals and mangrove forests, which make up part of the affected area, Zee said. Brazilian prosecutors have named Greek shipping company Delta Tankers Ltd as a suspect of the leak's origins. The company issued a statement earlier saying it found no evidence of leakage after reviewing the ship's cameras and sensors. "This material will be willingly shared with Brazilian authorities, should they contact the company regarding this investigation. So far, no such contact has been made," the statement said. Federal Police officer Franco Perazzoni said at Monday's press conference that the company will be officially notified via Interpol. Brazilian prosecutors said previously that Delta's oil tanker, named Bouboulina, was navigating through Brazilian waters at the time and location of the spill. The ship was carrying oil from Venezuela to Malaysia. In a search order seen Friday by The Associated Press, Brazilian prosecutors said "there is no indication of another boat" that could have discharged the Venezuelan crude into the sea. Brazilian armed forces along with environmental protection agencies and petroleum authorities are leading an operation to clean, monitor and investigate the oil spill. Several public universities are conducting research about the spill's origins and impact. Television footage has also shown volunteers flocking to beaches to help with the cleanup, often without government supervision. Of particular concern at the moment is the Abrolhos national marine park, home to Brazil's largest coral reefs. Authorities said Sunday night that they had removed the fragments of oil that had appeared in the park and so far no new traces had been found. "A very small amount of oil arrived on November 2, on November 3 only a few fragments remained, today there's none," Puntel said in the Monday press conference. "Will more oil fragments come? Maybe." Claim: Brazil reckons with new oil spill mystery: When will it end?.
Solution:
Brazilian authorities said on Monday that they have no way of knowing how much more oil will wash ashore the country's northeastern coast, despite President Jair Bolsonaro's ominous warning during a Sunday night TV interview that "the worst is yet to come."