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: "Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine recently told some disturbing and odd stories about bath salts an emerging drug that he said is a growing problem in Ohio. The stories were part of DeWine's announcement last month that his office will target bath salts in its ongoing fight against drugs. Bath salts and other synthetic drugs have a tendency to induce violent and paranoid behavior, said DeWine, the state's top law enforcement officer. One example DeWine, a Republican, gave involved a man having hallucinations of raccoons in his house. ""The Ohio State Highway Patrol confronted a man who after using bath salts reported that raccoons had set fire inside his home and stolen his cell phone. He proceeded to chop up his deck with a hatchet while looking for the fire-setting raccoons,"" DeWine said. That got PolitiFact Ohio's curiosity going, so it decided to look into the facts behind the bizarre tale. Examining the statement might provide useful information to people unfamiliar with the drug and its effects. When we called DeWine's office for information to back up his account, spokesman Dan Tierney provided an Ohio State Highway Patrol study to educate the law enforcement community about bath salts. Bath salts, which became illegal in Ohio in 2011, are a synthetic drug that can be snorted, injected or mixed with a fluid to drink. Users have said the drug gives an intense high and a rush similar to cocaine, according to the highway patrol study, which was completed in May. Others have described users as violent, unpredictable and paranoid. The study includes a short description of the raccoon event DeWine described along with five other incidents involving bath salts but it doesn't provide any details about the time, place and people involved. We called the highway patrol and were told the incident happened in Reynoldsburg, near Columbus. The police department there provided a report with written accounts from three responding officers. The police report includes a transcript of the 911 call in August 2011 from the 31-year-old Reynoldsburg man who was seeing raccoons: ""I got raccoons in my house that are starting fires. I wonder how the hell they are doing it,"" he said. ""I keep putting them out but they start another one. I had to drive down here because I couldn't find my cell phone. I think one of them took it and did something with it."" The report also said the man told police he took bath salts three times that day and could be hallucinating. A local fire department determined there were no fires inside the house. One of the officers noticed the deck at the house was destroyed and there was a hatchet nearby. The man told police he chopped up the deck because he was looking for a dead raccoon. So where does that leave us? DeWine's account at the press conference last month was backed up by the Reynoldsburg police report. His only misstep was saying state patrolmen confronted the man. The mistake is immaterial because it doesn't change the circumstances of the incident and the role of bath salts, according to police. The Reynoldsburg man, for what it's worth, eventually pleaded guilty to a charge of making false alarms. DeWine's statement is accurate and there is nothing significant missing. That rates on the Truth-O-Meter." Claim: A man using bath salts reported that raccoons had set fire inside his home and stolen his cell phone.
Solution: Mike DeWine says abuse of bath salts led man to make bizarre claim about racoons