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.
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
Example 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.
Example explanation: 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.

Problem: Paragraph: The brand, dubbed Marley Natural, marks the first time the family's name would adorn packages of cannabis products ranging from strains similar to those Bob might have smoked in his homeland Jamaica to concentrates, oils and infused lotions sold in countries and U.S. states that have taken steps to decriminalize and legalize pot use and sales. Marley, credited with helping to spread Jamaican music to a world-wide audience with hits like "No Woman, No Cry", and "I Shot the Sheriff," died of cancer in 1981 at the age of 36. "He viewed the herb as something spiritual that could awaken our well-being, deepen our reflection, connect us to nature and liberate our creativity," Cedella Marley, Bob's daughter, said in a statement announcing the deal. The agreement came weeks after two U.S. states voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use in systems that would usher in retail shops similar to those already operating in Colorado and Washington state. The sale of cannabis remains illegal in much of the world, but countries mainly in Europe and the Americas have decrminalized it by varying degrees. The Netherlands permits the sale of marijuana in "coffee shops", Israel and Canada and nearly half of U.S. states have allowed its medicinal use, and Uruguay has legalized its use. In the United States, marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration did not immediately respond to interview requests about the plans. The Marley Natural brand would likely be seen on cannabis and other products and accessories by late 2015 under the 30-year global licensing arrangement struck between the family and Seattle-based private equity firm Privateer Holdings. The brand, a wholly-owned subsidiary based in New York, would produce and sell hemp-infused topicals and accessories in countries around the world and could enter into licensing agreements governing production and packaging requirements with growers and processors that sell cannabis and cannabis-infused products in U.S. states, among other plans. Marley's family said in 2009 it would partner with Hilco Consumer Capital to license products ranging from apparel to video games. Claim: Reggae icon Bob Marley's family to lend name to cannabis brand.
Solution: The family of Reggae icon Bob Marley and a Seattle-based private equity firm on Tuesday said they are launching the first global cannabis brand with marijuana products sold under a name long tied to a plant he lovingly called "the herb".