Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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
Output: 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.
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.

New input case for you: Paragraph: It is not the first time drugmakers have clashed with Pretoria. A decade ago the industry was forced to climb down in a bruising battle with South Africa over AIDS drugs patents and access to generics. The latest fight reflects tension between an industry that wants to protect its intellectual property, even as it pushes further into emerging markets, and governments from India to Brazil that are determined to increase patients' access to life-saving treatments. South Africa is in the final stages of implementing a new law that would allow generic drugmakers to produce cut-price copies of patented medicines and make it harder for firms to register and roll over patents. Global drugmakers have drawn up a $600,000 publicity campaign to mobilize local and overseas opposition to the intellectual property (IP) changes, according to a document written by a drugs industry lobby group and seen by Reuters. Minister of Health Aaron Motsoaledi on Friday lashed out at drugmakers, saying their campaign was aimed at turning South Africans against the government. "It's a conspiracy of satanic magnitude," he said. "This document can sentence many South Africans to death. This is a plan for genocide." The ruling African National Congress is looking to cut healthcare costs as it grapples with the world's heaviest HIV/AIDS caseloads and its biggest treatment program. The new law is expected to reduce medicine prices and open up a fledgling generic drug industry dominated by Aspen Pharmacare and Adcock Ingram. The policy would also close a loophole known as "ever-greening" that allows a drugmaker to make minor changes to an existing drug or discover a new use for it, and then register it as a totally new find. Healthcare activists say South Africa's track record of approving drug patents - in 2008 it granted more than 2,400 patents compared with fewer than 300 in six years in Brazil - shows the need for reform. The document - prepared by U.S. consultancy Public Affairs Engagement for industry lobby Innovative Pharmaceutical Association South Africa (IPASA) - outlines a plan to delay the reform at least until after South Africa's elections in early May by suggesting the new law would be politically damaging. "The world cares that South Africa is proposing to take a wrong turn in economic policy by weakening IP protections. And by cares, we mean both expresses compassionate concern and will take action by reducing investment," the document reads. IPASA members include drugmakers such as Sanofi, Baxter International, Pfizer and Novartis. IPASA spokeswoman Val Beaumont confirmed the authenticity of the document but said the proposals were still under consideration. "No part of those proposals have been accepted. No part of that document has been implemented," she told Reuters. The industry could now ditch the campaign - which it dubbed "Almost Political" - because the leaked document has likely weakened its negotiating position. Under current South African IP law, pharmaceutical companies are able to register drugs as new without being checked for their novelty. Claim: South Africa slams Big Pharma in generic drugs row.
Output:
South Africa on Friday slammed global drug firms over a covert campaign against its planned overhaul of intellectual property laws to favor cheaper generic drugs, accusing pharmaceutical companies of a "satanic" plot to commit "genocide".