Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
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
Output: 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.
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 case for you: Paragraph: Archaeologist Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem gestures near an archaeological site known as the City of David during an interview with Reuters in Jerusalem's Old City March 4, 2010. REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen But critics say some of "finds" are really just bending science to prove a "Biblical heritage" that is open to dispute. "Archaeologists have given up many of their best practices in order to answer the continuing demands of mainly political actors," says Raphael Greenberg, an Israeli archaeologist from Tel Aviv University, who has worked in Jerusalem. With generous funding, including from religious groups intent on expanding Jewish settlement, archaeologists are digging up possible Biblical sites in occupied East Jerusalem and its surrounding West Bank suburbs at record pace. So fast, say critics, that there are cave-ins at some sites, heightening tensions with the 250,000 Palestinians who live in the holy city, which Israel has controlled fully since 1967. Archaeology in Jerusalem dates back well over a century British enthusiasts began digging below the Old City 150 years ago, revealing remains that many say are those of a walled settlement ruled by the biblical Jewish king David. That City of David site, still an active dig, is now also a tourist attraction, with around 400,000 visitors a year. It is funded by Elad, a group which also supports Jewish settlement. As visitors eye the cracked stone walls, a stout 60-year-old man dons a skullcap, stops the group and flips open a Bible. "This is where archaeologists found a clay seal with the name Gedaliah Ben Paschur, mentioned in verse 38:1 in the Book of Jeremiah," whispers the volunteer, who gives his as Mordechai. "I can't tell you what to think. But what else could this place be, if not the ancient Biblical city?" Greenberg is not persuaded by fixation on the holy book. "Archaeology cannot prove or disprove the Bible," he says "A name that matches that of a person in the Bible can only be taken so far it's just a name." He says some archaeologists cater to financial donors like Elad, which seeks to establish Biblical roots and develop tourism, thereby strengthening Jewish claims on the area. "Over time, when you're funded by these people in huge sums, and we're talking millions of dollars, you become part of the machine," argued Greenberg, who has been speaking out for some time over his doubts about archaeology in the holy city. Jerusalem archaeologists feel pressured on all sides. "I'm being looked at by religious extremists on all sides, the municipality, and the Antiquities Authority. Everybody is pushing his side," says Ronny Reich, an archaeologist from the University of Haifa in northern Israel. Walking atop the massive stone steps of the Silwan Pool or the Pool of Siloam which he excavated in 2004, Reich dodges crowds of tourists. According to scripture, Jesus healed a blind man here. Reich insists that his Elad funders do not influence him and he is "not in accordance" with everything Elad does. He says his work is unfairly attacked: The critics "can't fight Elad in court, so they use my dig," he said, to attack it by proxy. Bringing an outsider's eye to the arguments, British writer Simon Goldhill, in his 2008 book "Jerusalem: City of Longing," speaks of the thrill of the digs that are rewriting text books, almost by the year, but also of the bitter, personal arguments: "The vitriolic dispute over the status of the Bible for archaeology is a classic Jerusalem row," the Cambridge professor writes, "touched as it is with so many personal issues within the small community of professional archaeologists, and laced as it is with the political charge of early history in this country." Critics like Hani Nur al-Din from the Palestinian Al Quds University in Jersualem accuses some Holy Land archaeologists of caring more about publicity than scholarly peer review. He names Eilat Mazar, of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who drew attention last month after excavating a wall she says was built by the biblical King Solomon in the 10th century BC. "She doesn't give any archaeological context to her findings other than dating pottery shards," Nur al-Din charged. "The Bible should be put aside. It's not a history book." But Mazar, scion of an illustrious Israeli archaeology dynasty, disputes that: "Excavating Jerusalem without knowing the Bible is impossible," she says. She said she would write a scientific report of her find following laboratory study. Pointing out the freshly excavated wall, Mazar says the Bible offers a "core of reality": "We've got a fantastic 10th century fortification line that indicates a central, powerful regime," she said. "The Bible tells us there was such a king at this time, and his name was Solomon. Why ignore it? An archaeological site known as the City of David is seen in Jerusalem's Old City March 4, 2010. REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen "The question is if we can trace that core and prove it existed. Well, here it is." Greenberg complains that the focus on the specific histories of the peoples on the land around Jerusalem can obscure the fact that finds here can have greater importance than proving, or disproving, the ancestral ties of one group or another. "Israeli archaeology has a lot to contribute to very basic history about the development of the earliest human civilizations," he said. "If all we deal with is who were the Jews or the Palestinians, then this remains a very anachronistic and parochial archaeology with little to say to the world." Claim: Researchers dig up controversy in Jerusalem.
Output:
Archaeologists in Jerusalem are competing to unearth artifacts pointing to the ancient city's Jewish past, which are used to justify Israel's claim to all of it as the indivisible capital of the modern Jewish state.