Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: Until a month after the end of the state of emergency, called on March 18 to prevent the spread of coronavirus and extended last week to at least April 17, electricity, water, and gas cannot be shut off, easing pressure on Portuguese families struggling to pay their bills. Government data shows over 4,000 people registering at job centres per day in the first week of April and an increase in unemployment of 28,000 in March as the country's export-driven, tourism-dependent economy reels from the sudden drop in demand. Also on Wednesday, parliament voted to grant partial pardon to prisoners with pre-existing health conditions, up to two-year sentences or less than two years left behind bars, in a move aimed at decongesting prisons to minimise risk in the event of an outbreak. Prisoners given sentences longer than six months who have served a quarter of their time, normally allowed three days leave, will be granted 45 days. "The virus would spread like a fuse in a prison," justice minister Francisca Van Dunem said. "A decent state does not leave any of its citizens behind, even if they are prisoners." Those convicted of homicide, sexual violence, physical abuse, or association with criminal networks will remain in prison, as well as anyone who committed a crime while in public office, from politicians to police officers. Portugal, currently in its third week of a nationwide state of emergency, has so far reported 13,141 confirmed coronavirus cases and 380 deaths, a relatively low toll, especially compared with neighbouring Spain and Italy. Earlier on Wednesday, hotel association AHP reported that around 85% of hotel workers in Portugal will be temporarily laid off in April due to the impact the coronavirus is having on the country's economy. AHP also said the hotel industry could lose 80% to 90% of its revenues, or up to 1.4 billion euros between March and June if the novel coronavirus continues to spread. Portugal attracts millions of foreign visitors annually, and the tourism sector, accounting for nearly 15% of gross domestic product, helped it to recover from the 2010-14 debt crisis. (This story corrects 2nd paragraph to reflect that state of emergency was extended last week, not this week) Claim: Portugal suspends water, electricity shutoffs and releases some prisoners amid coronavirus outbreak.
Answer:
Portugal's parliament temporarily suspended electricity, water and gas shutoffs and granted partial pardon to some of its prisoners on Wednesday as the country moved to contain the economic and social damage of the coronavirus outbreak.