Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
One example: "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."
Solution is here: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

Now, solve this: It's too early to discusshow much one of these experimental drugs might cost. But the article could have reported something about the estimated costs of currently caring for thesepatients. It's also worth noting that if a drug is ever approved, it will cost Medicare a bundle. In the story's descriptions of "promising" drugs from Biogen, Merck and Lilly, there is essentially zero quantification data. There needed to be some, even in a wrap-up or trend article such as this. The story did not cover harms. A problem with these drugs is that they can cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which are findings on brain scans that indicate swelling and small hemorrhages in portions of the brain. These were the most frequent adverse events in the Biogen study and occurred in a lot of people, especially at the higher doses. Overall, the story did a good job explaining why several major pharmaceutical firms think there is still hope for an anti-amyloid strategyfor Alzheimer's disease. As noted in the summary, it might have been useful for the article to have stated earlierand perhaps more forcefullythat despite the confidence drug developers appear to have in the amyloid hypothesis, the scientific jury is still out. And a discussion of competing hypotheses would have been useful to add, too. No mongering here. The story had no independent sources. It also didn't disclose the conflict of interest of Dr. Paul Aisen, whohas received money from multiple drug companies, including the ones discussed in this piece. The story adequately compares alternatives and discusses the overall lack of any effective medication for Alzheimer's disease. As noted above, however, a discussion of competing hypotheses about the origins of the disease, along with related potential treatment strategies, would have been useful to include. The article makes pretty darnclear that there will be a) no final answers to the amyloid hypothesis debate any time soon; and b) the advent of a successful anti-amyloid drug that helps those withAlzheimer's is not close at hand. As noted earlier, this was not a "breaking news" story, but a round up of sorts of what's happened since the Lilly drug trial for solanezumab reported negative results. But there is news-like information here about the optimism of the companies still working the amyloid hypothesis. Whether a high level of optimism is warranted or not is a good question, but the article could at least inform a healthy discussion. There appears to be original reporting and perhaps use of one (at least) newsrelease.
Solution:
Why Biogen is breathing a sigh of relief with the latest Alzheimer's data