Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Lawyers for the 85-year-old fugitive director petitioned Los Angeles Superior Court to compel the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to make him a member in good standing again. In May, the academy made the rare move of expelling Polanski and Bill Cosby, months after ending the membership of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Polanski appealed the decision, and in January the academy rejected his appeal. Friday's five-page filing states that by not giving Polanski sufficient notice of his expulsion, and not giving he or his lawyer to argue his case in person during the appeal, the academy "failed to comply with its own rules, policies and regulations." The academy responded with a brief statement saying, "The procedures taken to expel Mr. Polanski were fair and reasonable. The Academy stands behind its decision as appropriate." The filing also alleges that the expulsion violated a California law that requires corporations to give a fair hearing before removing a member, calling it a "prejudicial abuse of discretion." Polanski's attorney Harland Braun said at the time that Polanski was "blindsided" by his removal, and learned of it through media reports. The filing says that the academy's decision is final and the director has no recourse for reconsideration outside of the courts. Polanski, who won a best director Oscar for "The Pianist" in 2003, remains a fugitive after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor in 1977 and fleeing the United States the following year. He has been living in Europe since. He had been an academy member for nearly 50 years at the time of his expulsion, and his films had been nominated for 28 Oscars. But he had long been one of the organization's more divisive members. At the 2003 ceremony, Polanski's win his first received a standing ovation. He was not in attendance. He'd previously been nominated for writing his adaptation of "Rosemary's Baby," and directing "Chinatown" and "Tess." Polanski's ouster from the group means he can no longer vote for nominees and winners, but he and his films can still win Oscars. After expelling Weinstein, the academy implemented revised standards of conduct for its over 8,400 members. The standards said the organization is no place for "people who abuse their status, power or influence in a manner that violates standards of decency." The code allowed the academy's board to suspend or expel those who violate the code of conduct or who "compromise the integrity" of the academy. There have been no reports of Weinstein or Cosby appealing their expulsions from the academy. Before Weinstein, only one person is thought to have been expelled from the academy: Carmine Caridi, a character actor who had his membership revoked in 2004 for lending DVD screeners of films in contention for Oscars. ___ AP Film Writer Jake Coyle contributed to this report from New York. ___ Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton .
Student:
Polanski asks court to restore his film academy membership.