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.
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
Example 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.
Example 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: The group also took a dig at Volkswagen AG, lauding it in chemistry for engineering its vehicles to produce fewer emissions "whenever the cars are being tested." The prizes will be awarded for a 26th straight year at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Thursday by a group of actual Nobel Prize winners, and are intended to honor accomplishments in science and humanities that make one laugh, then think. "The prizes are for something pretty unusual," said Marc Abrahams, editor of the Annals of Improbable Research, and host of the awards. "Almost any other kind of award is for the best or worst. Best or worst is irrelevant to us." Timeliness is also of limited consideration: The Ig Nobel Reproduction Prize went to the late Ahmed Shafik of Egypt, who died in 2007, for a 1993 paper documenting that rats who wore polyester or polyester-cotton blend pants were less sexually active than those who wore cotton or wool pants or conformed to rat norms and wore no garments of any kind. The paper suggested that "electrostatic fields" created by polyester pants could play a role in impotence. "We have never heard of anybody else who carefully spent time examining what happens sexually to rats if you put pants on them," Abrahams said. Two Britons split this year's Biology Ig Nobel. Oxford University fellow Charles Foster, was honored for his book "Being a Beast," chronicling his experiments in living as a badger, including digging a den to sleep in and eating worms. Countryman Thomas Thwaites' work was in a similar vein; he built a set of prosthetic leg extensions to try living like a goat in Switzerland. Japan's Atsuki Higashiyama and Kohei Adachi were granted the Perception Ig Nobel for a paper on how objects look different when one bends over and views them through one's legs. Volkswagen's award was more ignominious, going to the company for equipping its vehicles with a "defeat device," which activated the emission controls of an engine undergoing government tests and deactivated them afterward. VW has already agreed to spend up to $16.5 billion to address U.S. environmental, state and owner claims. Claim: Work on sex life of rats, life as a badger honored at Ig Nobel Prizes.
Solution: Scientific research into how polyester pants affect the sex life of rats, what it's like for a human to live like a badger and how different the world looks when viewed through your legs was honored at this year's Ig Nobel spoof awards.