Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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
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.
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: Despite a 25-year-old international ban on most international elephant ivory trade, poachers are illegally slaughtering elephants by the thousands for their tusks and wildlife advocates blame the remaining ivory trade. In the United States, regulations against trading in ivory are tightening. The state of New York has adopted a near total ban and the Obama administration is tightening federal rules. This is unfair, say people like Defrin, whose gallery sells costly figurines, vases and other ivory curios. Such antiques contain ivory taken from elephants in the distant past, sometimes centuries ago, and should not be subject to sales restrictions, they say. Defrin said regulations already in place have damaged his business, drying up European demand for his goods and restricting import of ivory. "They've basically ruined the collective antique trade," he said. "Is this really something that will stop poor African people from killing elephants?" Yes, say wildlife advocates and regulators. They say an "antique loophole" in existing rules sometimes allows new ivory to be disguised as old, fueling global demand for tusks and keeping illegal poaching profitable. "This poaching crisis in Africa is being driven by demand for ivory," said Laura Noguchi, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the U.S. Congress back this month after a summer break, a fight over ivory trade regulation is taking shape. It will not be a top priority for lawmakers faced with other urgent decisions. But it may get attention due to the involvement of the National Rifle Association. One of Washington's most powerful special interest groups, the NRA is advocating for the interests of gun enthusiasts with ivory-decorated weapons. Alaska's Don Young and California's Ken Calvert, both Republican representatives, are offering legislation to soften Obama administration restrictions issued over the last year. "The administration's ivory rule is well-intentioned, but was not crafted carefully enough to account for law-abiding Americans who may possess legally obtained products containing ivory," Calvert told Reuters in a statement. Ivory has been used for hundreds of years in manufacturing items such as the tips of bows for stringed instruments, piano keys, decorative items for the home, and importantly, for ornamental inlays in rifle and shotgun stocks and handgun grips. Even though the ivory trade is largely curbed globally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an estimated 100,000 African elephants were killed by poachers between 2010 and 2012, according to a study last year by the National Academy of Sciences. Much of the demand for ivory comes from Asia. In China, a growing affluent class has increasingly sought ivory as an ornamental item. Some experts have reported that speculators in eastern Asia are stockpiling raw ivory, hoping it will fetch higher prices in the future. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which regulates ivory sales on a federal level, said the United States is a "significant market" for ivory, though it had no detailed estimates for ivory trading in the country. The agency issued a director's order last year prohibiting commercial import of all ivory, without exception, and clarified other limits on ivory exports. The agency followed up that order with a proposal in July that would further limit exports of ivory to legally qualified antiques. The proposal would offer an exemption allowing the sale of certain manufactured items that contain less than 200 grams (7 ounces) of ivory, a move the service said should include most firearms and musical instruments. New York state outlawed the sale of ivory last year, offering exceptions only for items proven to be antique and containing only a small amount of ivory. Earlier this month, California's legislature approved a similar measure. Just how much new illegal ivory may be "laundered" as antique is unclear. A study of ivory for sale in Los Angeles in 2014 commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, found that up to 90 percent of the ivory surveyed may have been illegal under California law, and as much as 60 percent may have been prohibited under federal law. The study's author, Daniel Stiles, cautioned that determining the age of ivory by visual examination is subjective. The only way to firmly date ivory is based on carbon dating and DNA tests, which are costly and require cutting into the ivory. Wildlife groups have applauded the Obama administration's actions and are seeking more bans at the state level on even the sale of antique ivory similar to New York's statute. "The more we can eliminate legal markets in ivory, the more difficult it becomes to sell ivory illegally," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the wildlife program for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Claim: Push to save African elephants stirs U.S. clash over antique ivory trade.
Solution:
The ornate ivory statues and carvings sold in Scott Defrin's New York gallery date from the 17th and 18th centuries, but the antique dealer's business is being upended by a 21st century fight over saving the African elephant.