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.
One example: "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 is here: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: 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.

Now, solve this: Lawyers for the state, including Attorney General Mike Hunter, told a judge in Norman, Oklahoma that J&J's "greed" led the drugmaker to carry out a years-long marketing effort that caused "utter confusion" about the addictive painkillers' risks. Brad Beckworth, a lawyer for the state, said J&J knew opioids were harmful, yet minimized the risk of addiction in their marketing, resulting in a surge in overdose deaths as doctors overprescribed the drugs and they flooded the state. "They didn't get here from a Mexican cartel," Beckworth said. "They got here from the pharmaceutical cartel, and the kingpin of them all is Johnson & Johnson." The state urged Judge Thad Balkman, who presided over the nonjury trial for six weeks, to find J&J liable for creating a public nuisance and force it to pay up to $17 billion over 30 years to address the epidemic. Larry Ottaway, J&J's attorney, countered its products, which had included the painkillers Duragesic and Nucynta, were minimally used in Oklahoma and that trial testimony showed doctors were not misled about the drugs' risks before prescribing them. He said New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J strictly adhered to regulations governing opioids, which served a legitimate purpose, and called Oklahoma's multi-billion dollar demand "untenable." "Only a company that believes its innocence would come in and defend itself against a state, but we take the challenge on because we believe we are right," Ottaway said in his closing argument. Balkman said he would rule after receiving briefs from both sides, due July 31. The case is one of around 2,000 actions by state and local governments accusing drug manufacturers of contributing to the opioid epidemic. Opioids were linked to a record 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Oklahoma case is being closely watched by plaintiffs in other opioid lawsuits, particularly in 1,900 cases pending before a federal judge in Ohio who has been pushing for a settlement ahead of an October trial. Purdue and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA.TA) were originally also defendants in the case. Purdue reached a $270 million settlement with Oklahoma in March and Teva settled for $85 million in May. Both deny wrongdoing.
Solution:
Opioid 'kingpin' J&J fueled epidemic, Oklahoma argues at trial's end.