Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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
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.
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: Activists in Arkansas accused Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of sending constituents "cease-and-desist" letters. But while it's true that at least one member of the group received one, it is unclear how many constituents at large have as well. A spokesperson for Cotton's office, Caroline Rabbitt Tabler, confirmed the existence of the letters, saying that they were issued "under extreme circumstances." She also said that it was rare to send any constituent such a letter. There has been no confirmed tally of how many times it has happened. The letters began getting attention when the liberal group Ozark Indivisible posted a picture of one on Twitter on 17 January 2018, along with a message taunting the senator: #TraitorTommy @TomCottonAR scared of his constituents calling so he's sending out cease and desist letters. You're too [chicken] to lead CIA if you can't even listen to constituents! #arpx #TraitorTommy @TomCottonAR scared of his constituents calling so he's sending out cease and desist letters. You're too 🐔 to lead CIA if you can't even listen to constituents! #arpx pic.twitter.com/N1HAGCmbW6 Ozark Indivisible (@OZRKIndivisible) January 18, 2018 The letter stated: This letter is immediate notification that all communication must cease and desist immediately with all offices of US Senator Tom Cotton. All other contact will be deemed harassment and will be reported to the United States Capitol Police. The letters themselves, however, are not recent; the one posted by Ozark Indivisible was dated 17 October 2017. A Fayetteville resident, Stacey Lane, identified herself as the recipient of the letter posted online. Rabbitt Tabler said Cotton's office did not accuse her of saying anything threatening but did not go into detail on why it sent her the letter. Ozark Indivisible confirmed to us on 19 January 2018 that Lane is a member of their organization. They also disputed reports that Lane threatened anyone or called a staffer a "cunt." The group added: There have been others who have received the letters, but they do not want to come forward. They are not OI members. According to reports, "an unspecified number of individuals" received letters that month. Rabbitt Tabler said in a statement that they are "only used under extreme circumstances": Senator Cotton is always happy to hear from Arkansans and encourages everyone to contact his offices to express their thoughts, concerns, and opinions. In order to maintain a safe work environment, if an employee of Senator Cotton receives repeated communications that are harassing and vulgar, or any communication that contains a threat, our policy is to notify the U.S. Capitol Police's Threat Assessment Section and, in accordance with their guidance, send a cease and desist letter to the individual making the harassing or threatening communication. Another person, who did not identify themselves, told the Arkansas Times that they received a similar letter. They said: I believe if Tom Cotton's office were to respond as to why they sent this letter, I think they just honestly don't want to listen to any citizen's opposing view or hear the numerous grave concerns U.S. citizens have about the serious & ongoing attack on our Democracy and past election cycle in which a foreign, hostile Russian government interfered, they don't want U.S. citizens to call and speak their mind and truth in a very direct manner and they obviously don't want to be held accountable for their words and actions while serving all the people in this nation. I may have used unprofessional and unbecoming language at times as the anxiety and stress of what I'm witnessing is at times too great a burden to control and I have vehemently expressed my righteous anger at Senator Cotton's complicitness with this harmful regime. Cotton, whose current term in office runs through 2020, has come under criticism from his constituents in the past. During February and April 2017 town hall events, he was pelted with questions regarding various issues and hit with chants that included, "Do your job." Claim: "Sen. Tom Cotton's office has sent ""cease-and-desist"" letters to constituents ordering them not to contact him."
Student:
We contacted Cotton's office seeking further comment on the October 2017 letters and explore any connection to the town halls, but did not receive response.