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 bill passed both houses of the New Jersey legislature with strong bipartisan support and was sitting on Chistie’s desk on Friday but the Republican presidential hopeful would not indicate his intentions. The legislation would completely prohibit smoking inside all state, county and municipal parks. Public beaches would also be smoke-free, though local officials can opt to save 15 percent of beach land as a designated smoking section. “This is definitely groundbreaking,” said Karen Blumenfeld, the executive director of Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy, a proponent of the New Jersey bill. “We would be the first state to impose such a wide ban in all public outdoor spaces and the legislation will continue the trend of New Jersey being a model for other jurisdictions’ anti-smoking policies,” she said. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and second-hand smoke exposure has been linked to asthma, lung cancer, and stroke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Supporters say the ban will allow New Jersey residents and visitors to enjoy parks and beaches without the distraction of wafting cigarette smoke and would drastically reduce litter, fire risks and children’s exposure to smoking. “No one needs to sit in an ashtray when ‎enjoying the beach,” state Senator Joseph Vitale, a sponsor of the bill, told local media. Blumenfeld said the measure has a “critical mass” of support in the state. But some residents said the measure would trample on personal liberties. “I don’t think the government needs to be involved,” said Bryan Adamson, 32, of Blairstown. “As a smoker I use common sense and respect for the environment and those around me,” he said. Others said it was time to put an end to the outdoors as a  last sanctuary for those who choose to light up. “Even when I smoked and was on the beach next to a smoker I would be frustrated because frankly I don’t want to be stuck around it if I don’t have to be,” said Lauren DiGenova, 26, of Waldwick. New Jersey has some of the strictest anti-smoking policies in the country. It was the first state to prohibit smoking in college dormitories in 2005, Blumenfeld said. A year later, Trenton banned indoor smoking in bars and restaurants. More than 200 New Jersey cities, towns and boroughs have already passed their own restrictions on cigarette and tobacco use in parks and beaches. The legislation would cover outdoor public spaces across the state. Offenders would face a $250 fine for the first offense, $500 for the second and $1,000 for each additional citation. Christie’s office would not say where the governor stood on the bill. Claim: New Jersey may be first state to ban smoking on beaches, in parks.
A:
New Jersey could become the first state in the nation to ban cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products in all public parks and beaches if Governor Chris Christie signs into law a sweeping anti-smoking bill approved by lawmakers.