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: A trio of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) won the Nobel prize for physics for a half-century of work that confirmed the presence of the ripples in space and time predicted by Albert Einstein. The win, the second of the week by U.S. scientists, comes as the administration of President Donald Trump has proposed cutting funding for science research and expressed skepticism over climate change. That reflects skepticism among the broader American public, where a growing number of people reject scientific findings on issues from whether climate change is man-made to the safety of vaccines. “We live in an epoch where rational reasoning associated with evidence isn’t universally accepted and is in fact in jeopardy. That worries me a lot, said Rainer Weiss, an emeritus professor of physics at MIT, and part of the team honored on Tuesday. “If this gives people who are not me but others the credential to be able to stand out and say, ‘Listen to this,’ that is valuable,” Weiss, who won half the $1.1 million prize, said in a phone interview. Barry Barish of Caltech, also an emeritus professor of physics, sounded similar concerns. “Anything that makes us take more seriously scientists, or economists, or chemists, or physicists or biologists, I think is helpful in times when things get distorted because of people not paying attention to all the facts,” Barish said by phone. “It’s crazy that we happen to have a country where it depends on what political party you are in whether you believe in climate change or not,” Barish said. “We have an administration right now that so far seems to be very anti-science.”  Efforts to reach the third of the team, Kip Thorne, also of Caltech, were unsuccessful. Polls of U.S. voters show that Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to believe global warming is caused by humans. One in three Republicans told a Reuters/Ipsos poll from Sept. 1 through 28 that they believed global warming is caused by mostly or totally by human activity. Nearly three out of four Democrats believe the same. The poll included 3,992 respondents and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 2 percentage points. Skepticism about science is not limited to climate. A 2016 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 10 percent of Americans believe the risks of vaccines outweigh their benefits, with 17 percent saying parents should be able to choose not to vaccinate their children even if doing so creates a health risk for others. During his election campaign, Trump described climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese to make U.S. industry less competitive. As president he said he would pull out of the Paris climate accord, saying it was damaging to business. Weiss’ team was the second group of U.S. scientists to be honored by the Nobel committee this week, after another trio won the 2017 Nobel prize for medicine on Monday for unraveling molecular mechanisms that control our internal body clocks. Claim: Respect for science in jeopardy in polarized U.S., Nobel winners say.
A:
Two of the U.S. scientists awarded the Nobel prize on Tuesday for opening up a new era of astronomy by detecting gravitational waves said they hoped the attention would make Americans less inclined to dismiss scientific consensus in favor of politics.