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: "In the wake of mass shootings in Wisconsin and around the country, it may have been alarming to hear Gov. Scott Walker explain why he proposed more spending for mental health care in his 2013-2015 budget. ""Nationally, serious mental illness costs at least $193 billion a year in lost earnings,"" Walker said during his Feb. 20, 2013, budget presentation. ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" In the course of his remarks, Walker used two different terms -- ""serious mental illness"" and ""serious psychological distress."" He used the second to illustrate lack of care. Is he correct that only half of Wisconsin adults with ""serious psychological distress"" receive care? Backdrop: mass shootings Walker didn't mention mass shootings in his budget address, but he alluded to them two weeks earlier when he revealed his plan to boost mental health spending by $29 million over two years. The National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin praised the spending boost, which would be done from several different pots of money.But the advocacy group said Walker's rejection of a federal proposal to expand Medicaid ""reflects a shallow understanding"" of ""crucial means to affordable mental health care for Wisconsin residents."" In revealing his plans, the governor stopped short of drawing a clear link between treating mental illness and preventing mass shootings, but indicated his plan took on greater urgency after mass killings in 2012. Those incidents included the shooting deaths of six worshippers at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee and of 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. To be clear, only about 1 percent of people with mental illness considered to be severe are regarded as dangerous. But a 2011 Milwaukee Journal Sentinelreport found that this group can pose a dilemma for policy-makers, who lack the data to develop a sound system for dealing with it. Walker's budget, which could be modified by the Legislature, includes $12.6 million to treat more patients who have been committed to mental hospitals, $10.2 million to expand community-based care programs for people with severe mental illness and $3.8 million for more coordination of care for children with behavioral issues. Walker's evidence When we asked Walker's office for evidence to back his claim, we were initially referred to a January 2013 report by his Department of Health Services. The report estimated, based on a federal survey of American adults, that in 2011, 49 percent of the 1 million adults in Wisconsin who had ""any mental illness"" did not get treatment. Any mental illness refers to people who have a ""diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder."" The disorder causes impairment -- ranging from mild to moderate to substantial -- in carrying out major life activities. The 49 percent figure cited in the health department's report might appear to support Walker's claim. But his claim about Wisconsin didn't use the term mental illness. It used the phrase ""serious psychological distress."" We pointed out the difference to Stephanie Smiley, spokeswoman for the department. She then cited federal survey data showing that over a two-year period -- 2010 to 2011 -- an estimated 51 percent of Wisconsin adults with ""serious psychological distress"" did not get treatment in the previous year. (She also said that in 2008-2009, 31 percent of state adults with serious mental illness got treatment.) So, the 51 percent figure about serious psychological distress appears to back Walker's claim. But let's understand serious psychological distress as compared to serious mental illness, given that mental illness was the focus of Walker's comments and his proposed spending increase. Other evidence Based on definitions pertaining to adults from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which oversees the surveys Walker cited: there are differences between serious mental illness -- the first term Walker used in his budget speech -- and serious psychological distress, which he mentioned second. Serious mental illness refers to a ""diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder"" that involves substantial impairment in carrying out major life activities. Serious psychological distress refers to how a person responds to six questions in a federal survey about whether they feel nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, sad or depressed, ""that everything was an effort"" and ""no good or worthless."" Experts we consulted said that serious mental illness was a more precise term used to identify a person after thorough diagnosis and that serious psychological distress was an intentionally vague term used by researchers doing surveys. ""It kind of casts a wider net,"" Annabelle Potvin of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin said of the serious psychological distress term, which she said indicates a need for a person to get a mental health assessment. Serious psychological distress can encompass people anywhere on a scale from mild to serious mental illness, but tends to be lower on the scale. That's according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Tim Connor, who evaluates mental health programs across the state; and Walter Laux, behavioral health division director of Community Advocates, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit agency. Indeed, the state Department of Health Services, in a 2010 report, also made a distinction. Serious psychological distress is a ""non-specific category of distress"" characterized by a ""mood or anxiety disorder and a lesser degree of functional impairment than serious mental illness."" It is considered to be ""an indicator of possible serious mental illness, with similar but less strict inclusion criteria."" In other words, people with serious psychological distress might have mental illness, but that distress is generally regarded as lower on a scale than serious mental illness. Our rating After making a reference to serious mental illness, Walker said: ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" Strictly speaking, Walker's statistical claim is accurate, at least based on estimates derived from a federal survey. But his statement needs clarification, given that people with serious psychological distress may have mental illness, but have not been diagnosed as being mentally ill." Claim: In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication.
Answer:
After making a reference to serious mental illness, Walker said: "In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication." Strictly speaking, Walker's statistical claim is accurate, at least based on estimates derived from a federal survey. But his statement needs clarification, given that people with serious psychological distress may have mental illness, but have not been diagnosed as being mentally ill.