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 cost of the drugs was not mentioned. And the possible cost-effectiveness ramifications of the research were not mentioned. As is often the case with 70% of the stories we review, cost just doesn’t seem to matter. But we all know it does. The benefits are given only in relative, not absolute terms. See our primer on this topic. So when the story says ""24 percent lower incidence of dementia"" or ""The risk was 19 percent lower"" or ""The risk was nearly halved"" – readers need to know 24% of what? 19% of what? Half of what? One harm was mentioned – ""There are potential hazards, such as too-low blood pressure that can lead to damaging falls."" That’s an incomplete listing, but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt in at least nodding in the direction of potential harms. The story did state:  ""The new report describes an observational study, one that lacks the strict controls that are needed for convincing proof."" And it further quoted the lead researcher saying, ""Any study like this is hypothesis-generating. You only know for sure when you have done clinical prospective trials."" So we’ll give it a satisfactory grade. But we do with mixed feelings. That’s because we’re troubled when the story talks about ""a small but protective effect "" and uses active verbs to say the drugs ""may stave off dementia."" That is terribly misleading to the reader. ""Protective effect"" when you state in the story this is not convincing proof of cause and effect? Blogger Emlly DeVoto wrote about the problem with causal language used in a Guardian article on the same study. There is no overt disease-mongering of dementia in the story. The story did quote one independent expert who injected a cautionary note – in addition to the lead researcher. The story did note other observational studies that have ""implicated various molecules"" in dementia. We’ll again give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. Although never explicity stated, the widespread availability of angiotensin inhibiting drugs can be inferred from the story. The story doesn’t frame the new study into the context of past research linking high blood pressure to dementia. There’s no evidence that the story relied on a news release." Claim: Some Blood Pressure Drugs May Stave Off Dementia
A:
"Generally well done though the story may have been, we’re troubled when a story talks about ""a small but protective effect "" and uses active verbs to say the drugs ""may stave off dementia"" when it also states in the story this is not convincing proof of cause and effect. Then how can you have a protective effect? Association, maybe? Causation and protection, not yet. This is an important and intriguing area of research. But stories that make it sound as though cause-and-effect has been proven – when it hasn’t – don’t do a service to public understanding. See how  blogger Emlly DeVoto wrote about the same problem with causal language used in a Guardian article on the same study."