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: 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 is here: 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.
Explanation: 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: Paragraph: With France's five million Muslims making up about eight percent of the overall population, the test, similar in size to a pregnancy test, aims to help consumers detect traces of pork not just in food, but also in cosmetics or medicines. The kit comes with a small test tube in which a food sample is mixed with warm water. A test strip is then inserted into the water which delivers its verdict after a few minutes: one line means no trace of pork; two lines means pork is present. Frenchmen Jean-Francois Julien and Algerian-born Abderrahmane Chaoui came up with the idea at university two years ago in the midst of a Europe-wide scandal over mislabeled frozen meals containing horsemeat instead of beef. Julien was already developing tests for people suffering from food intolerance or more serious allergies. "Abderrahmane tells me 'you know, food allergies and food intolerance are very interesting of course but you should really diversify yourself in animal proteins'," Julien said. "That's when we got the idea to develop a specific anti-body for porcine DNA." Their company, Capital Biotech, argues no other existing test allows the end user to analyze the content of a food product as easily and cheaply as theirs. The tests cost 6.90 euros per unit and are 99 percent accurate. "HalalTest" will be available for purchase online very soon, the founders said. Despite its name, Capital Biotech says no test can tell whether a meat dish is fully halal. As well as shunning pork, Islam dictates that animals be slaughtered according to a strict method. Even so, Capital Biotech said it had received pre-orders for 10,000 testing kits within 24 hours of the launch on Wednesday. French Muslims have embraced the product. "With this test we can find out whether there really is or isn't any pork inside," said halal supermarket Hal'City worker Mohamed Hatmi. Julien and Abderrahmane, who have also launched an alcohol test, have developed several other tests which could, they believe, interest millions of food intolerance sufferers. The first will detect cow's milk proteins, while another will detect traces of gluten in food for people who have an intolerance to gluten or those who have developed celiac disease, said Capital Biotech co-founder Thomas Nenninger. Claim: French entrepreneurs launch test to detect pork in food.
Solution:
Two French entrepreneurs have launched a portable device to test for the presence of pork in food for use by Muslims who abide by dietary laws.