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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg's defense of "stop and frisk" police tactics disproportionately targeting young people of color was brought back to light after audio from a 2015 speech found newlife on social media five years later:Audio of @MikeBloomberg's 2015 @AspenInstitute speech where he explains that "you can just Xerox (copy)" the description of male, minorities 16-25 and hand to cops.Bloomberg had video of speech blocked.Perhaps because of the problematic explanation he gives for #StopAndFrisk pic.twitter.com/Fm0YCi4ZRy Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) February 10, 2020The audio was taken from Bloomberg's February 2015 appearance at the Aspen Institute. In it, the former New York City mayor can be heard saying:Ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15 to 25. That's true in New York. That's true in virtually every city in America. And that's where the real crime is. You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed. So you want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets. Put those cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.So one of the unintended consequences is people say, "Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities." Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them And then they start, "Oh I don't want to get caught." So they don't bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.The audio was originally posted on YouTube by journalist Karl Herchenroeder shortly after Bloomberg's appearance for the institute on February 10 2015. Herchenroeder also reported at the time that the Aspen Institute and GrassRoots TV, the group that filmed Bloomberg's speech, honored his request not to release the footage of his remarks. NPR reported in February 2020 that the far-right Daily Caller blog also posted audio of the speech."At this point, I think it's beyond reasonable to respectfully call on all of the people who endorsed @MikeBloomberg to retract those endorsements," Dixon later wrote.About 90 minutes after Dixon's post, another Twitter user posted footage of Bloomberg defending "stop and frisk" the practice of detaining and questioning people based on "reasonable suspicion" in a June 2013 interview with WOR-AM in New York City. Bloomberg said at the time:One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying, "Oh it's a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group." That may be, but it's not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the [crime]. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It's exactly the reverse of what they're saying. I don't know where they went to school, but they certainly didn't take a math course. Or a logic course.Mike Bloomberg defending Stop-and-Frisk in 2013: "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little." pic.twitter.com/KpdKgUALsL (@upmtn) February 11, 2020At the time, a reported 87 percent of around 5 million police interactions in the city invoking "stop and frisk" involved Black or Latinx people. According to a March 2019 report by the New York Civil Liberties Union, 66 percent of overall stops conducted under the program resulted in the detainee being frisked, but 93 percent of people frisked did not have a weapon. In August 2013, federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that "stop and frisk" was unconstitutional and that Bloomberg's administration "turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner." At the time, Bloomberg argued that Scheindlin had denied "a fair trial" to the city.But in November 2019, prior to embarking on his presidential campaign, Bloomberg apologized for "stop and frisk" in an appearance at the Christian Cultural Center, a Brooklyn church in which the congregation is primarily Black."Over time, I've come to understand something that I long struggled to admit to myself: I got something important wrong," Bloomberg said. "I got something important really wrong. I didn't understand back then the full impact that stops were having on the black and Latino communities. I was totally focused on saving lives, but as we know, good intentions aren't good enough." Claim: "Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg said that ""95 percent of your murders"" are committed by ""male minorities 15 to 25."
A:
Did Michael Bloomberg Say Young Men of Color Commit '95 Percent of Your Murders'?