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.

Let me give you an 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
The answer to this example can be: 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.
Here is why: 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.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: Since Purdue filed for bankruptcy protection in September, Arizona is the first state to switch sides in the looming showdown over the privately-held company's proposed settlement, which it has estimated is worth more than $10 billion. Purdue reached the deal last month with 24 states and the local governments that have filed the bulk of the more than 2,600 lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege Purdue and its Sackler family owners contributed to a public health crisis by aggressively marketing opioids while downplaying their addiction and overdose risks, which contributed to nearly 400,000 deaths since 1999, according to U.S. statistics. "Purdue and the Sackler family need to take responsibility for their role in the opioid crisis," said Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said in a statement. Purdue declined to comment. Last week, court filings from states and local governments opposing the settlement asserted that Purdue steered up to $13 billion in profits to the Sackler family, more than triple the amount previously cited in litigation. A lawyer for some of the Sacklers last week said in a statement that much of the money was paid in taxes and reinvested in businesses that will be sold as part of the proposed settlement. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in White Plains, New York, will on Friday consider Purdue's request for an injunction to pause the litigation for about nine months. Purdue said it needs time to try to settle the remaining cases. Purdue also asked Drain to shield the Sacklers from litigation, even though they have not filed for bankruptcy, partly because the family has proposed contributing at least $3 billion toward the settlement. Opponents of the settlement accused the family of using Purdue's bankruptcy to shield their wealth from victims. With Arizona, 25 states now oppose the deal. Kentucky and Oklahoma reached prior settlements with Purdue. Separately on Tuesday, a Massachusetts judge ruled against the Sacklers, who sought to have the state's lawsuit against them dismissed. The judge rejected their argument they did not personally participate in Purdue's conduct. Massachusetts was the first state to sue the Sacklers and Attorney General Maura Healey is leading the opposition to the proposed settlement. Claim: "Florida Democratic Party Says Jeb Bush ""oversaw (an) average in-state tuition increase of 48.2 percent during his tenure."
Answer:
The U.S. state of Arizona withdrew its support for a proposed nationwide opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma LP, saying the maker of OxyContin sought to "undermine material terms of the deal," according to a court filing on Monday.