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.
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
Example 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.
Example 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: Early in the session, Democratic state Rep. Tonya Pfaff, a high school math teacher from Terre Haute, introduced an amendment to a school safety bill that would have allowed school corporations to use safety or security subsidies to provide students with school-based mental health services. A bipartisan group of lawmakers said substantial language involving mental health services was later removed because of criticisms from conservative organizations and parent groups, the Tribune-Star reported. "I'm disappointed that we didn't put any real money into dealing with mental health issues this session," Pfaff said. "We continue to talk about school safety, but we can't talk about it without talking about mental health and social-emotional wellness." Jennifer McCormick, the Republican state superintendent of public instruction, said financial backing for mental health services didn't receive the attention it warranted. "We were disappointed to see how the legislation ended up," McCormick said. "However, I have faith in our local schools that they are going to do what is right for kids" and provide access to needed services. The apprehension of conservative groups related to the mental health legislation "had to do with parental consent," said state Rep. Bruce Borders, a Republican from Jasonville. He said parents deserve to know what is being asked of their kids. "That's where most of the battles came in, over parental consent on some of these evaluations," Borders said. Terry Spradlin, executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association, said most of the school safety legislation prioritizes revamping building security and addressing threats, instead of prevention. "They really didn't do an adequate job on the prevention side, addressing the social-emotional learning and mental health needs of students," Spradlin said. "We've got more work to do in that area. ISBA will continue to be an advocate and bring forth some new ideas in future sessions to address those critical needs." ___ Information from: Tribune-Star, http://www.tribstar.com Claim: Indiana educators disappointed about mental health funding.
Solution: The failure of Indiana lawmakers to approve proposals during this year's legislative session that would have made mental health services eligible for school safety funding is a huge disappointment, education officials said.