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

Problem: Paragraph: "The story mentions that 30 capsules ofOSR#1 cost $60. It would have been nice had the story also includedinformation about the amount of active ingredient per capsuleand the manufacturer's recommendeddosage. This wouldhave allowed readers to make a better calculation as to the financial impact oftreatment. This is critical information consideringthese costs will be borne out of pocket by anyone usingOSR #1. The storyjuxtaposes a light-hearted""success story""with information about the industrial uses of OSR #1 for removing toxic heavy metals from contaminated soil. This is a clever way ofway of emphasizingthat the use of this product is based entirely on anecdote. The storyclearly states that there is no credible evidence supporting the efficacy of the product. The harms of this product are impossible to quantify, given that it doesn't seem to have been studied in humans or in animals. The story notes that otherchelating drugs carry ""significant risks""and ""can strip the body of metals necessary for health."" It would have been nice to see more specifics about what chelators can do, but the story satisfies the critierion. The story states that medical searches turned up no papers about OSR#1, and that the companywhich makesthe productprovided nopublished studies about its use. The story rightly suggests that this total lack of evidenceshould be deeply troubling. The story doesn't exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism, or of the potentially toxic compounds sometimes used to treat it. The story quotes multiple experts on pharmacology and an FDA spokesperson. It also quotes from an interview with Boyd Haley, president of the company which makes OSR#1. It attempted to get a reaction from Kim Stagliano, an OSR #1 proponent, but this effort was not successful. While the story mentions that there other are chelation drugs out there, it could have mentioned that there areeducational strategies which can be helpful for children with autism and which have betterevidence to support their use. The story states that OSR#1 is, according to the manufacturer'swebsite, available onlythrough dentists' or doctors' offices. Itnotes, however,that theTribune was able to buy 30 capsules of the productdirectly from a compounding pharmacy listed on the site. We areimpressed that the Tribune went to these lengths toestablish the product's availability. The story provides a fairly detailedpedigree for OSR #1and discusses itssimilarity to other chelation therapiesused in the treatment of autism. It also gives credit to blogger Kathleen Seidel for being the first to raiseconcerns aboutOSR #1 in her blog, Neurodiversity.com The story is well sourced and is not based on a press release." Claim: Industrial chemical OSR#1 used as autism treatment
Solution:
The product known as OSR #1 contains a chemical originally intended for clean-up of toxic waste at industrial sites. This story by the Chicago Tribune (which was republished by the Los Angeles Times) examineshow,despite a total lack of any researchon the product in humans,OSR#1 ended up being marketedas a "dietary supplement" for childrenwith autism. The story does an especially good job of pointing out the regulatory gaps whichcan allowrisky, poorly researchedproductsto be sold as "cures" to desperate parents and caregivers. It's an example of health journalism doing what it'ssupposed to do, and doing it well. Autism is a serious disorder which affects a growing number of children and their families and for which there are few goodtreatment options. Thisis asituation ripe for abuse by overzealous advocates andunscrupulous marketersof uNPRoven therapies. AsBoyd Haley, president of the company thatmake thethe OSR#1 supplement, puts it:"There are so many snake oil salesmen out there, it's just incredible."