Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
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."
Output: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
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.

New input case for you: Although the peer-reviewed study on which this story seems to have been based on makes the point that text messages could offer a low-cost strategy for reducing the chances of subsequent heart attacks, the story does not reflect on cost. A clear and readable chart in the story quantifiesthe apparent benefits of these text messages. But what's missing here is some nuance:The control group saw a rise in blood pressure, whereas the experimental group remained relatively the sametheir blood pressure didn't actually get lower. So, does that even translate to an actual reduced heart disease risk? And does any of this actually prevent heart attacks? These unanswered questions could have been better emphasized. The concept of "harm" does not appear to be relevant here. Individuals may find text messages to be annoying, of course, but the study itself notes that participants "overwhelmingly" reacted positively to the intervention. That doesn't make it into the story. The story makes it clear that the study utilized an experimental and a control group, and that this study duration was longer than past studies. Yetthe headlinesuggests that text messages can"prevent" heart attacks. The study offers no evidence for that link: There was no measurement of heart attack rates between groups. Instead, they measured several surrogate markers associated with heart disease, such as lipid levels and blood pressure. This should have been stressed. Repeat heart attacks are relatively common, making continued, at-home treatment of heart attack victims important. The story clearly identifies one source as the leader of the study and includes a second source who appears to be independent of the research. Funding sources are missing from the story, but the study's declarations of funding do not seem eyebrow-raising. The story doesmention some other interventions used to prevent heart attacks, such astypical medications taken to lower blood pressure or cholesterol. The story explains that the study leader is now involved in an effort to replicate her results, which implies that the treatment regimen is not available at present. However, studies of social media and apps used to promote healthy behaviorsare ubiquitous, soit mighthave been useful for the reporter to explore the availability of this strategy compared to others on the market now. The text does a decent job of explaining the novel aspects of the study compared to some similar efforts, though more could have been included on the results of the previous research. Also, since this particular study was actually published nearly a year ago, in September 2015, an effort to update our understanding of message effects would seem to make sense. We weren't able to locate a news release, but the inclusion of an independent source in the story is a reliable indicator that the story didn't rely onone.
Output:
How to Prevent a Heart Attack: Text Patients on Healthy Habits