Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: "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: 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.

Problem: U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill on Wednesday ordered the Forest Service to examine how exploratory drilling by British Columbia-based Otis Gold Corporation could affect groundwater and possibly fish. The company's Kilgore Project covers about 19 square miles (50 square kilometers) on Forest Service land and land managed by the state of Idaho in Clark County about 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of Idaho Falls. The company says the area contains about 825,000 ounces (23.4 million grams) of gold. The company in a summary of its plans says it would like to get the gold by digging an open-pit mine. Such a mine would require additional approval from the Forest Service. The Forest Service in August 2018 approved the expansion of the exploration part of the project that includes 10 miles (16 kilometers) of new roads and 140 drill stations. The Idaho Conservation League and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition filed the lawsuit in November 2018 contending the exploratory drilling could pollute groundwater and surface water. The groups also said the drilling would harm grizzly bears, whitebark pine, Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Columbia spotted frogs. Winmill ruled the Forest Service didn't violate environmental laws in determining the exploratory drilling wouldn't overly harm grizzly bears, whitebark pine or Columbia spotted frogs. However, Winmill found the Forest Service hadn't done an adequate analysis involving groundwater quality in the Dog Bone Ridge drainage, home to Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The trout are considered a sensitive species facing threats to its population or habitat. "The Court's ruling affirms that the Forest Service must fully assess impacts to water and sensitive species before approving mining exploration," said Laird Lucas of Advocates for the West, a legal firm that is representing the environmental groups. "There should be no doubt: Water is more precious than gold in Idaho." The U.S. Department of Justice, which defends federal agencies in lawsuits, didn't immediately respond to an inquiry from The Associated Press. Craig Lindsay, president and CEO of Otis Gold Corp., didn't immediately return a call from the AP. Otis Gold Corporation is one of two British Columbia-based companies hoping to mine for gold in Idaho with open-pit mines. The other is Midas Gold, which wants to expand two open pits and create a third in an area about 40 miles (65 kilometers) east of McCall. That area has been heavily mined for a century and Midas Gold says it will restore the area as part of its mining plan. The company's plans are in an environmental review process.
Solution:
Ruling puts hold on gold exploration plans in eastern Idaho.