Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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
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.
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: Everett, a working-class city of about 108,000 north of Seattle, sued Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma in January, alleging the company knowingly allowed pills to be funneled into the black market and into the city and did nothing to stop it. Purdue filed a motion to dismiss in March. Before hearing arguments Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez called the case an interesting one with some novel legal issues. Purdue attorney Patrick Fitzgerald told the judge the case should be tossed for a number of reasons. Among them, the city fails to show a direct relationship between the company's conduct and the alleged harms. "It's a textbook example of remoteness," Fitzgerald said. He argued there are nine steps including wrongdoing by pharmacies and criminal gangs between Purdue's conduct and the expenses the city incurred in responding to the problems of opioid addiction. The lawyer for the city, Christopher Huck, told the judge that emails and other internal documents show that Purdue knowingly put their painkillers into a supply chain they knew ended at an organized drug ring, and the city has suffered for it. The city should be allowed to make its case at trial, he said. "OxyContin has devastated the community and inflicted enormous harm," said Huck, who was joined at the table by Everett Mayor Ray Stephanson. The injury here is the diversion and misuse of OxyContin and the damages is what the city had had to deal with that harm, Huck said. Three city council members, the police chief and others filled the benches in the courtroom Monday. "Our city has been significantly damaged. Obviously, we hope the case is not dismissed and goes forward on its merits," the mayor said outside the courtroom. "Our community needs help. And clearly we believe our city has been damaged by this crisis." Purdue knew their pills were going into the black market, had an obligation to report it and they didn't do that, Stephanson said. Fitzgerald argued in court that there's no proof Purdue was dealing to drug dealers and noted that Purdue provided pills to a wholesaler. The company argued Monday that the statute of limitations has passed for the city to file the lawsuit. In court documents, it also argued that city can't hold it responsible for illegal trafficking when law enforcement officials knew and were already investigating criminal trafficking at issue. The lawsuit doesn't say how much money the city is seeking. Stephanson said that will be determined in the weeks and months to come. Everett filed its lawsuit after the Los Angeles Times reported that Purdue had evidence that pointed to illegal trafficking of its pills but in many cases did nothing to notify authorities or stop the flow. That newspaper investigation prompted the city's lawsuit. Last week, a second city in Washington state, Tacoma, sued Purdue Pharma and two other opioid manufacturers, Endo Health Solutions and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. That lawsuit alleges the companies made false and misleading statements about the benefits and risks of opioids to doctors and patients over the past two decades. ___ Information from: The Daily Herald, http://www.heraldnet.com Claim: City asks judge to let case against OxyContin maker proceed.
Student:
A Washington city that says the pain medication OxyContin has devastated the community asked a federal judge Monday to let it move forward with its lawsuit seeking to hold the pill's manufacturer accountable for damages.