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: The proposal, more than a year overdue, also calls for a limit of 200 calories on items sold during the school day at vending machines or other venues outside the school lunch line. The proposed rules are the second step in a larger effort to improve the foods U.S. students have access to during the school day under a 2010 child nutrition law. One-third of U.S. children and teenagers are overweight or obese. The proposed rules would cover some 50 million children attending more than 100,000 schools that are part of the school lunch program. Many U.S. children eat more than half of their calories at school. There was wide agreement by food and beverage companies, consumer advocates and public health experts on the need to offer students healthier choices "If a student buys a snack from a vending machine or a slice of pizza from the a la carte line, it should be healthy," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, head of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which focuses on health care. "These proposed nutrition standards, the first update in more than 30 years, are long overdue and badly needed." Children buy an estimated 400 billion calories of junk food a year at school, the same calorie count that could be found in 2 billion candy bars, said a group of retired military leaders who back the proposed rules. The group, called Mission: Readiness, has warned that one in four young Americans is too heavy for military service. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who has described his own struggles with weight as a child, said the higher standards for snack bars, vending machine and cafeterias will mean "the healthy choice is the easy choice for our kids." USDA said the rules would not cover items sold at after-hours activities, such as sporting events. They also would allow for "important traditions," such as parents sending cookies or cupcakes to school for a child's birthday, or "occasional fundraisers and bake sales." In general, foods sold at school could not provide more than 35 percent of their calories through fat or sugar. Salt content also would be limited. For beverages, USDA called for schools to be able to sell water, low-fat and fat-free milk, and 100 percent juices, with smaller 8-ounce (240-ml) portions created for younger students. High school students could buy 20-ounce servings of various calorie-free beverages, and 12-ounce servings of drinks that have 75 calories or less but not during lunch or breakfast. The soft drink industry said it has shifted to lower-calorie drinks in school vending machines and it welcomed USDA's proposal. The number of calories shipped to schools in beverages is down by 90 percent in six years, it said. The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal before USDA issues any final ruling. USDA said schools will have at least one full school year after the final rule is issued to implement the changes. Vending machines are in just 13 percent of U.S. elementary schools but are in two thirds of middle schools, where student are 11 to 14 years old, and in 85 percent of high schools. USDA says more than 80 percent of school districts have restricted or banned sugary drinks and more than 75 percent put limits on snack foods or banned them. Claim: Rules call for swing to healthier snacks in schools.
A:
Snacks sold in U.S. schools would need to be lower in fat, salt and sugar and include more nutritious items like fruits, vegetables and whole grains, under standards proposed on Friday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.