You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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
Solution: 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.
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.

New input: Paragraph: He did not spell out why he expected no corresponding EU moves. But in a statement, his agency said a key finding in its latest annual report was a "marked rise in the potency and purity of Europe's most commonly used illicit drugs, fuelling concerns for the health of users who, wittingly or unwittingly, may be consuming stronger products". It also pointed out an increase in the numbers of cannabis-related health emergencies in Europe between 2008 and 2012. Gotz told a briefing arranged to present the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction's report: "In Europe I do not know any government, or parliamentary majority backing a government, that is currently seriously discussing cannabis legalization or regulation in a different way. "I don't see a discussion coming up of the level as it is in the Americas," he said in Lisbon, the agency's headquarters. Portugal pioneered the decriminalization of all drug use in 2001 and some countries have followed suit, making possession of small quantities of drugs, especially marijuana, a misdemeanor rather than criminal offence. Germany allows seriously ill patients to grow, buy and consume their own cannabis under a special license, and medical marijuana is legal in the Czech Republic, but otherwise cultivation and use remain illegal in the EU. In the United States, 23 states and the District of Columbia allow medical marijuana, and voters in four states have gone further by approving the drug for recreational use by adults. But the drug remains illegal under federal law, which classifies pot as a dangerous narcotic with no current medical use. The EU drug monitoring agency said technical innovation and market competition have led to an increase in the potency of cannabis, the purity of cocaine and the MDMA-content in ecstasy tablets. It also flagged market changes such as detection of heroin processing laboratories in Europe and a greater diversification of trafficking routes and opioid products, which, combined with a substantial increase in opium production in Afghanistan, could reverse declines in heroin supply and stagnation of demand. Claim: EU drug agency sees no U.S.-like cannabis legalization moves.
Solution:
European Union countries are unlikely to legalize marijuana any time soon as some parts of the United States have done recently, EU drug monitoring agency chief Wolfgang Gotz said on Thursday.