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

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.
Why? 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: Paragraph: "At this early phase of research it's understandable that cost wouldn't be discussed. It provided the outcomes in absolute terms which we appreciate: ""Of 8,197 people who got vaccine, 51 became infected in the three years after their shots. Of the 8,198 who got placebo injections, 74 became infected. While that difference 23 infections out of more than 16,000 people studied is significant, it could have occurred by chance."" Were any harms besides the lack of protection in most trial participants reported in the Thai trial? We don't know from the story. This is the strength of the story by itself and in comparison with many other stories by many other news organizations. Over and over and throughout the story, the evidence was questioned. Excerpts: Other researchers were less sanguine about the study but did not want to be quoted by name as being skeptical when only a few details of the results have been released. ""I just think it's too early really,"" said one, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for that reason. ""It is in a kind of gray zone, and I think we should really get the data and look at it and see what it all means."" And there was more. You get the picture. No disease-mongering in this story. Interviews with Dr. Fauci of NIH, with one of the investigators, and with an unnamed skeptic. Good job comparing this vaccine approach with other vaccines. The experimental stage of the vaccine research is clear from the story, as when it states: The vaccine is not licensed or being produced in large amounts. It is unlikely but not impossible that any country would consider it effective enough to be used as a public health measure against HIV. The story gave lots of detail about the novelty of this approach, but questions: ""How a vaccine that induces both a weak antibody response and a poor cell-mediated one can protect some people from HIV infection is the big initial mystery of this study."" It is abundantly clear that this story did not rely on a news release, but, rather, was based on enterprise journalism with context and with a historical perspective." Claim: Scientists Puzzle Over Minor Success Of AIDS Vaccine
Solution:
While many other news organizations were calling a Thailand AIDS vaccine trial a breakthrough, this story provides caveats, some skepticism, loads of context, comparisons with other vaccines and historical perspective. You can read the criterion by criterion analysis below, but this is the way early announcements of experimental research results should be covered. Kudos to David Brown and to the Washington Post.