Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: Mike Hunter said the New Jersey-based company and its subsidiaries, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, created a public nuisance by launching a "cunning, cynical and deceitful" marketing campaign that overstated the benefits of opioid drugs for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction. "There was a simple reason for the crisis: greed," Hunter said. "The greed of the pharmaceutical companies caused the crisis." After closing arguments, Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman asked both sides to present written summaries of their cases by July 31 and said that he would then take about a month to issue his ruling. Oklahoma's case is being closely watched because it's the first state case to proceed to trial. It could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments that have been consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson argued they participated in a lawful and strictly regulated industry and that their marketed products represented only a tiny fraction of the opioids used in Oklahoma. Oklahoma's attorneys have pointed out that two former Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, produced much of the raw opium that is used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs. Larry Ottaway, an attorney for the company, said opioid drugs serve a critical health need to address chronic pain that affects thousands of Oklahomans every day. "This problem of untreated chronic pain afflicts people here in Oklahoma," Ottaway said. "These drugs help these patients function." During his closing argument, Ottaway played brief clips from a half-dozen Oklahoma doctors who testified about the desperate need some of their patients have to deal with chronic pain. "I trust you to do the right thing," Ottaway told the judge. "I trust you like I trust these Oklahoma doctors, and I think you should trust them as well." Attorneys for Oklahoma also outlined a plan developed by state mental health and addiction specialists to abate the opioid crisis that would range between $12.6 billion for 20 years or $17.5 billion over 30 years. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson say that estimate is wildly overinflated. Included in the abatement estimate is a need for the state of Oklahoma to hire 1,734 new employees at a cost of about $123 million each year, Ottaway said. "The state's plan is simply untenable," he said. "It seeks billions of dollars for services already being provided." Before the start of the trial on May 28, Oklahoma reached a $270 million settlement with Oxycontin-maker Purdue Pharma and an $85 million deal with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ___ Follow Sean Murphy at www.twitter.com/apseanmurphy ___ This version corrects the spelling of the last name of Johnson & Johnson attorney Larry Ottaway. Claim: Oklahoma AG calls company 'kingpin' in state's opioid crisis.
Solution:
Consumer products giant Johnson & Johnson was a "kingpin" company that helped fuel the most devastating public health crisis in Oklahoma history, the state attorney general argued Monday during the close of his case against the opioid drug manufacturer.