You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

"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
Why? 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.

New input: "SInce the test drug is in the very early stages of development, this criterion is technically not applicable. However, the present treatment regimen of an interferon and ribavirin costs thousands of dollars monthly for 6-12 months and it is likely that any newer antivirals will be additive and not replacements. A comment on the potential for significant additional costs would have been desirable. The story got a little carried away here. It said participants treated with the experimental drug had a ""dramatic"" reduction in viral load. While this may be true, it would have been helpful to point out, as the HealthDay story did, that the study lasted only a few days. We don't know whether this benefit can be maintainedover a longer period of time, especially considering that thehepatitis C virus has proven to be quite capable of developing resistance to antivirals over time. The story says study participants who took the drug exhibited ""few side effects."" But what were those side effects and how serious were they? The story doesn't say. While the implication here is that the drug seems to be safe a conclusion that we can't really draw based on a small, early phase test the story does include acautionary quote from an expert about the need for additional testing to demonstrate safety. It also noted that patients taking this drug might still need to be treated with interferon, which many individuals can't tolerate because of side effects. A close one, but we'll call it satisfactory. This story includes appropriate caveats about the early nature of this research and includes a restraining quote from an expert who warns that the drug might not make it out of phase II tests. Unlike the competing HealthDay piece, this story resisted getting too worked up about the other experimental drugs for hepatitis-C that are closer to potential FDA approval. This story does not exaggerate the prevalence or severity of hepatitis C. According to disclosure statements from a 2008 CME program,Dr. Bruce Bacon, an expert source for this story, received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, which is developing the experimental drug being discussed. He also is a consultant to drug companies developing competing drugs for hepatitis C.To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest it is desirable to identifyrelationships such as these clearly. This story fails to do so. The story compares the new drug with intravenously administered peg-interferon and ribavirin the currentstandard of carefor hepatitis C. The story called the research on BMS-790052 ""preliminary"" and made it clear thatthe drugwas not close to approval. It also was more cautious than the competing HealthDay piece in its description of two other antiviral drugs that are nearing FDA approval. The story notes that there are many other drugs being developed to treat hepatitis C. It explained that a potentially novel advantage of the new compound is that it seems to be effective against all genotypes. We can't be sure whether this story relied on a news release."
Solution:
Experimental Drug May Treat Hepatitis C