Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: The plan, revealed by Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs Director Erica Jeffries at a legislative hearing in Chicago, comes after a pledge by the Republican governor less than two months ago that he would replace antiquated plumbing which could provide harbor for the bacteria that causes the deadly, pneumonia-like malady. Rauner did say at the time a newly constructed facility could be a long-term option. "The cost and the disruption and the construction that would be involved, not to mention the time it would take to do this (plumbing replacement) would just not be worth the effort when you think about building a brand-new building," Jeffries said Monday. "We do not want to spend years tearing up 70-year-old buildings to put brand-new piping in when we know that might not be a total solution." Rauner stayed at the home for a week in January to dramatize his efforts to get to the bottom of the outbreak. He has been pummeled by opponents in his re-election bid who say his administration's response has mishandled the crisis. Jeffries, who did not cite a potential cost, said several of the buildings on the 130-year-old campus in western Illinois would be razed to make way for "state-of-the-art facilities" during the next three to five years. At another point Jeffries indicated that preliminary recommendations from task forces Rauner appointed would be delivered by March 31 with a final version due May 1. Rauner faces voters in a GOP primary election March 20. Rauner spokeswoman Rachel Bold said late Monday that plumbing replacement hasn't been ruled out and noted that Rauner's pronouncement in January included suggesting constructing a "brand-new building here that has the latest technology." The administration installed a $6.5 million water-treatment plant, adopted rigorous plumbing-fixture flushing protocols, installed filters on fixtures, and treated water with heat and chemicals, among other steps, in its effort to stop the problem. After initially appearing in 2015, Legionnaire's disease returned to the facility in 2016 and 2017. Four more cases were confirmed last month. Monday's hearing was called after the administration released an August 2016 report from Belleville-based consulting engineer BRiC Partnership suggesting steps to mitigate the problem, including replacing the underground water-distribution system and plumbing inside 15 campus buildings where the most susceptible residents live for $8 million. Jeffries said in December that plumbing replacement could cost $500 million or more; in January, she told lawmakers the price tag was $25 million to $30 million, but didn't specify the source of that estimate. She has never explained why she used estimates that at a minimum were more than four times higher than the actual number. BRiC's 2016 report, which cost $20,000, listed about a dozen ideas for a total of $17 million. The administration paid BRiC another $40,000 to update and expand its 2016 report. That update released last month indicated plumbing replacement for the entire campus would be $11 million; expanded options for the other ideas combined would cost no more than $24 million. Jeffries explained Monday that the August 2016 delivery of the BRiC report was just two months after the June completion of a $6.5 million water-treatment facility and wanted to test its effectiveness before taking any more actions. But Public Health officials had confirmed two more cases of Legionnaires' in late July, just days before BRiC's arrival on campus. ___ Contact Political Writer John O'Connor at https://twitter.com/apoconnor . His work can be found at https://apnews.com/search/john%20o'connor ___ Sign up for the AP's weekly newsletter showcasing our best reportingfrom the Midwest and Texas:http://apne.ws/2u1RMfv Claim: Rauner now plans to raze vet dorms where Legionnaires' found.
Solution:
Gov. Bruce Rauner's administration announced on Monday that it plans to replace residence halls at the Quincy veterans' facility which housed victims of a Legionnaires' disease outbreak responsible for the deaths of 13 people and making dozens more ill since 2015.