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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: It's widely known that languages evolve as societies develop and change, but the sounds we utter are also shaped, literally, by the placement of our jaw and that is influenced by how we chew our food, researchers report Thursday in the journal Science. Language study often focuses on cultural factors, "but our work shows that language is also a biological phenomenon you can't fully separate culture and biology," said Balthasar Bickel, a linguist at the University of Zurich and co-author of the new study. The researchers analyzed Stone Age and modern skulls and created simulations of how different jaw placements allow our mouths to make different sounds. They analyzed a database of roughly 2,000 languages more than a quarter of languages in existence today to identify which sounds were more and less frequently used, and where. Languages spoken by groups with hunter-gatherer societies in their more recent past are far less likely to use consonants used by longtime farming societies, the study found. "Our anatomy actually changed the types of sounds being incorporated into languages," Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Buffalo who was not involved in the study, wrote in an email. Before societies cultivated crops and learned to cook food, early humans chewed tough raw meat which was hard work on our jaws and teeth. Stone Age adult skulls don't look like modern skulls. These older skulls have upper and lower teeth closing directly on top of each other whereas today most people have some degree of overbite, with the front teeth extending in front of bottom teeth when the mouth is closed. "If you are raised on softer foods, you don't have the same kind of wear and tear on your bite that your ancestors had, so you keep an overbite," said Bickel. Eating softer foods not only sets the jaw in a different fashion, but also changes which sounds are easily pronounced. In particular, it becomes much easier to say "f and "v," which linguists call "labiodental" sounds. (Try it. Put your upper and lower incisors or "front teeth" directly on top of each other and try say "favor." It's difficult.) The researchers looked closely at 52 languages from what is called the Indo-European language group including dialects spoken from Iceland to India and charted how the "f and "v sounds appeared in a rising number of languages over time. As more societies developed agriculture and traded in raw meat for softer fare whether it's cooked meat and potatoes, or rice and stewed vegetables these sounds became more common, the researchers found. "New sounds get introduced into languages, and then are more widely adopted," said Steven Moran, also a linguist at the University of Zurich and co-author of the paper. The notion that agriculture shaped language was first suggested decades ago by American linguist Charles Hockett, but he did not attempt to prove it. Elan Dresher, a linguist at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the study, commended testing Hockett's theory, but said the research could be fine-tuned by looking at historical reconstructions of languages, rather than using language databases to make comparisons. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: The way you speak now was shaped by what your ancestors ate.
A:
The way most of us speak today is shaped in part by how long ago our ancestors gave up chewing tough, raw meat.