Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. Example
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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: An early-stage cloned embryo called a blastocysts is pictured in this undated handout photo. In a separate vote, parliament also decided to allow parents of children suffering serious diseases to use in-vitro fertilisation to select "savior siblings" who can act as donors for transplants to save their sick brothers and sisters. Parliament defeated an amendment to ban inter-species research in which human DNA is injected into cells derived from animals by 336 to 176 after hours of impassioned debate on ethics versus science. The vote means Britain retains its status as a world leader in stem cell research. Human-animal embryo research is banned in some countries including Australia, France, Germany and Italy. Prime Minister Gordon Brown supports the creation of human-animal or "admixed" embryos but some Roman Catholic members of his government oppose the research. Brown allowed members of parliament to vote by conscience rather than on party lines. "If we want to sustain stem cell research and bring new cures and treatments to millions of people, I believe admixed embryos are necessary," Brown argued in a newspaper article. The human fertilisation and embryology bill prohibits the transfer of the embryos to a human or animal and says they cannot be used for research beyond 14 days. The bill, which updates 1990 laws, is at committee stage when amendments are tabled and will be subject to a final vote in coming weeks. Two groups of scientists have already been given permission to create human-animal admixed embryos. The bill legalizes their research within set guidelines. Some researchers say allowing admixed embryos would open more avenues as they seek cures for conditions like motor neuron disease or Parkinson's. They say their creation would help ease a deficit of donated human eggs for stem cell research. But other scientists and religious leaders say that creating human-animal embryos is unethical, and using them for research is a blind alley that won't cure disease. One Catholic cardinal called the research "Frankenstein science". David King, director of the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, said he feared sufferers of Alzheimer's and other diseases were being offered false hope. "It is very sad that all these patient groups have been hyped up to believe in this stuff. They are going to be very disappointed. It is very unfair," he told reporters. Parliamentarians also defeated an amendment which would have banned the creation of "savior siblings" babies born from embryos selected through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) because they are a tissue match for a sibling with a genetic condition. Supporters say this will help children who cannot find matching tissue donors, but critics worry about the impact on children who have been born to improve a sibling's health, particularly if the treatment fails. The embryology debate will continue on Tuesday when members of parliament will vote on moves to end the need for IVF clinics to consider a child's need for a father. This would ease restrictions on lesbian couples and single women but opponents argue that a child needs a father. Parliament will also vote on Tuesday on abortion laws. Some MPs are seeking to lower the 24-week time limit for abortions. Brown favors the status quo. Claim: UK parliament backs human-animal embryo research.
Answer:
Britain's parliament voted on Monday to allow the creation of human-animal embryos which some scientists say are vital to research cures for diseases but critics argue pervert the course of nature.