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 preliminary settlement announced on Monday, which requires court approval, would resolve many claims arising from tainted steroid injections linked to New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc of Framingham, Massachusetts. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 64 people died and 751 were sickened in 20 U.S. states by injections of methylprednisolone acetate, a drug typically used to ease back pain. The outbreak occurred after NECC shipped tainted vials of the steroid to medical facilities throughout the United States. NECC filed for bankruptcy protection December 21, 2012, two months after shutting down as the outbreak began. Thomas Sobol, a partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro representing a plaintiffs’ steering committee, called the accord “a big step forward in getting justice for victims.”  Kristen Johnson Parker, another Hagens Berman partner, in a phone interview said, “All victims of the NECC tragedy should be able to share in the funds.”  NECC’s owners, bankruptcy trustee Paul Moore and lawyers for a committee of unsecured NECC creditors also confirmed the settlement in a joint statement. The owners denied liability or wrongdoing. Settlement funds are expected to come from the owners, insurers, tax refunds and proceeds from the sale of a related business. “We are pleased that a significant amount of funds will become available for distribution to victims and their families as compensation for the deaths, injuries and suffering they endured as a result of this tragic meningitis outbreak,” said Moore, a partner at Duane Morris. The accord requires final documentation and does not cover claims against various clinics that sold the tainted steroid or various vendors used by NECC. According to NECC’s bankruptcy filing, the company’s equity shareholders were Carla Conigliaro with a 55 percent stake, Barry Cadden and Lisa Conigliaro Cadden each with a 17.5 percent stake, and Gregory Conigliaro with a 10 percent stake. A lawyer for the owners did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is In re: New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 12-19882. Claim: Settlement reached over deadly U.S. meningitis outbreak.
A:
Owners and insurers of a now-bankrupt Massachusetts pharmacy linked to a deadly meningitis outbreak have agreed to pay more than $100 million to compensate victims, families of victims and creditors.