Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[EX Q]: "Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is urging Congress to pass legislation to deal with Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, saying that without action the economy and welfare of the U.S. territory will continue to deteriorate. During an interview on the Bloomberg network, Lew said that Puerto Rican hospitals are ill-equipped to deal with the spread of the Zika virus, that schools are closing and that the failing economy is driving people out. ""You have broad economic stress causing people to leave the island,"" Lew said May 3, 2016. ""Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year."" For an island with a total population around 3.5 million, that’s a serious exodus. We decided to see if Lew was right. Looking at the data Census data shows a small, but steady increase in the number of people leaving Puerto Rico for the mainland. More than 360,000 people went from Puerto Rico to the United States btween 2010 and 2014. However, the Census data isn’t out for 2015, which is the year Lew was talking about. So where did Lew get that figure? The estimate comes from the U.S. Department of Transportation, which tracks passengers departing from and arriving to the island. The Treasury Department has relied on this data before, according to department spokesperson Daniel Watson. The data show about 90,000 more people left Puerto Rico for the United States than came in. *The American Community Survey showing total out-migration of Puerto Rico to the US mainland **T-100 Domestic Market Data (US Carriers) None of this data includes people leaving Puerto Rico for somewhere other than the United States. Islanders mostly tend to head to the mainland, however, countries in Latin America, the Dominican Republic and Spain have been attracting Puerto Ricans as well. So the total number of migrants leaving the island is actually larger. Recent qualitative interviews by researchers from the Center for Puerto Rican Studies found that the people leaving Puerto Rico in the greatest numbers are nurses, paramedics, police officers, teachers, college professors and lawyers. They are often recruited and going to states with growing Hispanic populations in need of bilingual professionals. The surge in departures has led to the social media tag #yonomequito (""I am not going anywhere""). On Facebook this movement has been liked by 70,000 people. Our ruling Lew said that ""almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year."" That appears to be close. Airline data suggests about 89,000 more people departed Puerto Rico for the United States then entered it in 2015. While that’s not a perfect estimate to measure out-migration, all the population trends suggest Puerto Rico is experiencing a surge in out-migration, as residents leave for better jobs and prospects in the United States. Lew’s statement is ."
[EX A]: Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year.

[EX Q]: The announcement by the world’s largest fast-food chain comes as more companies respond to government and consumer pressure to address the global obesity epidemic. McDonald’s, which often bears the brunt of criticism over the restaurant industry’s penchant for tempting diners with indulgent and often high-calorie food, said it would offer the option in all of its 20 major global markets by 2020. McDonald’s also vowed to promote and market only water, milk and juice as the beverages in its popular Happy Meals for children as part of its announcement at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting in New York on Thursday. Waist sizes around the world are increasing, setting off alarms in public health circles. In recent years, the U.S. food industry has begun yielding to pressure from government, parents and consumers seeking to slim down adults and children. Sugary sodas have been yanked from public schools; sugar, sodium and calorie levels have been reduced in products, and calorie counts have been posted on some restaurant menus. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit that has tangled with McDonald’s over everything from fattening food to the marketing of Happy Meals, approved of the company’s move to add more fruits and vegetables to the menu. Still, it says the company and its rivals have a long way to go in terms of offering healthier options. “McDonald’s slow march toward healthier meals made a major advance today, but a long road lies ahead for the company,” CSPI said in a statement. McDonald’s is seen as something of a trend setter among restaurant chains, but like many of its peers, it has tended to resist external efforts to force change. About one year ago McDonald’s said it would begin listing calorie information on menus in some 14,000 U.S. restaurants and drive-throughs — ahead of a national rule that would require larger restaurant chains to make such disclosures but months after other chains embraced the idea. In July 2011 it tweaked its popular Happy Meals for children - reducing the french fries portion by more than half and adding apples to every order. The move came after pressure from CSPI, parent groups and others. More than one-third of Americans are obese, and about 10 percent of the nation’s healthcare bill is tied to obesity-related illnesses, such as Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. McDonald’s said its announcement is part of a plan developed with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which was founded by the Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association, to increase customers’ access to fruit and vegetables and help families and children to make informed eating and lifestyle choices.
[EX A]: Want fruit with your burger? McDonald's expands anti-obesity push.

[EX Q]: Released on Monday in the journal Health Affairs and based on data for thousands of PepsiCo employees over seven years, the findings “cast doubt on the widely held belief” that workplace wellness programs save employers significantly more than they cost, conclude Soeren Mattke of the RAND Corporation and his co-authors. “Blanket claims of ‘wellness saves money’ are not warranted.”  Workplace wellness programs, a $6 billion-a-year industry, are a favorite of the business community because they promise to improve productivity, cut absenteeism and reduce medical costs by averting expensive illnesses. They aim, for instance, to help employees quit smoking, maintain a healthy weight and have regular screenings for elevated cholesterol, high blood pressure, cancer and other conditions, all of which are supposed to reduce healthcare spending. Half of U.S. employers with at least 50 workers offered a wellness program in 2012, as did more than 90 percent of those with 50,000-plus workers, according to a 2013 RAND report. PepsiCo’s was introduced in 2003. The programs are also a pillar of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law. The ACA allows employers to reward workers who participate in wellness programs, and penalize those who refuse, with discounts or increases of as much as 30 percent of their insurance costs. That can be thousands of dollars per year. Some workers have objected to the programs because of the penalties. Others say workplace wellness efforts invade their privacy and promote poor medicine. Last year, for instance, faculty members at Pennsylvania State University rebelled against a workplace wellness program whose “health risk assessment” asked, among other questions, whether male employees examined their testicles every month and whether women employees intended to become pregnant. They also protested its requirement that even healthy young adults receive frequent cholesterol and other screenings, which physicians recommend against, and the steep penalties for opting out: $1,200 a year. “You’re making employees do something that invades their privacy and that goes against medical advice, and now we’re seeing (in the PepsiCo study) that it doesn’t even save the employer money,” said Al Lewis, founder and president of the Disease Management Purchasing Consortium International, which helps self-insured employers and state programs reduce healthcare costs. PepsiCo did not respond to requests for comment on the study. Megan Broderick, senior manager of the company’s health and welfare benefits and a co-author of the Health Affairs paper, said she could not speak to a reporter without permission. The vendor that sold PepsiCo the program, the SHPS division of ADP, also declined to comment, citing “client confidentiality,” said ADP spokesman Dick Wolfe. Maria Ghazal, a vice president of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of large U.S. corporations, said its members are “as enthusiastic as they have ever been about these (workplace wellness) programs,” adopting them not only to control healthcare costs but also to boost employee morale and improve recruitment. “Wellness is an area where you can distinguish yourself,” she said. “Employers feel they help attract and retain” valued workers. For their study, RAND’s Mattke and his colleagues - including two PepsiCo executives - examined PepsiCo’s “Healthy Living” program, which has two components. One, called disease management, helps people with any of 10 chronic illnesses, among them asthma, diabetes and hypertension. They receive regular phone conversations with a nurse about managing the condition. Disease management produced healthcare savings of $136 per member per month, largely because of a 29 percent reduction in hospital admissions, the researchers found. When hypertension is well controlled, for instance, people are less likely to land in the hospital with a stroke. When asthmatics take their medication, they don’t wind up in the ER unable to breathe. PepsiCo’s disease management program “provides a substantial return for the investment made,” Mattke said. The “lifestyle management component” is what most people think of as a workplace wellness program. It includes a health risk assessment in which workers answer questions about such behavior as eating and exercise habits; smoking cessation programs; and educational materials and telephone sessions with a “wellness coach” to help them lose weight, eat healthy, get fit, manage stress or stop smoking. PepsiCo employees who participated in these lifestyle programs reported a small reduction in absenteeism, but there was no significant effect on healthcare costs. (The study uses costs as a proxy for health, assuming that if people get sick they seek care. But it did not explicitly assess the programs’ effect on participants’ health.) “Participation in lifestyle management interventions,” conclude the PepsiCo researchers, “... has no statistically significant effect on healthcare costs,” and employers considering adopting such a program “should proceed with caution.”  The PepsiCo study is not the first to find that workplace wellness programs fall short of their promise. Last year, Mattke was the lead author of a RAND report that found that healthcare costs of workers who participated in such a program averaged $2.38 less per month than non-participants in the first year of the program and $3.46 less in the fifth year. Neither difference was statistically significant. Researchers who are skeptical of wellness programs’ benefits are concerned that the ACA - “Obamacare” - allows employers to offer substantial financial rewards and penalties tied to something ineffective. “The ACA took a bad idea, workplace wellness programs, and turbocharged it by allowing employers to penalize workers,” said Lewis, co-author of a new e-book titled “Surviving Workplace Wellness.”
[EX A]:
PepsiCo's workplace wellness program fails the bottom line: study.