In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Newton's Principia introduces four rules of reasoning for natural philosophy. Although useful, there is a concern about whether Newton's rules guarantee truth. After redirecting the discussion from truth to validity, I show that these rules are valid insofar as they fulfill Goodman's criteria for inductive rules and Newton's own methodological program of experimental philosophy; provided that cross-checks are used prior to applications of rule 4 and immediately after applications of rule 2 the following activities are pursued: (1) research addressing observations that systematically deviate from theoretical idealizations and (2) applications of theory that safeguard ongoing research from proceeding down a garden path. # 
 Title: Do Newton's rules of reasoning guarantee truth . . . must they?

Ex Output:
False


Ex Input:
Paragraph: This paper describes the molecular detection of respiratory viruses from nasopharyngeal flocked swabs (flocked swabs) and nasopharyngeal washes (washes) in a clinical setting. Washes and flocked swabs collected from children < 3 years old hospitalized with a lower respiratory tract infection were tested for parainfluenza virus 1-3, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B and metapneumovirus (Group 1) and adenovirus, rhinovirus and coronavirus (Group 2) using realtime reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). A consensuses standard was used to determine sensitivity and compare cycle thresholds (C T ) of washes and flocked swabs for each virus and group of viruses. Sensitivities ranged from 79 to 89% and 69 to 94% for flocked swabs and washes, respectively, excluding AdV which had a sensitivity of 35% for flocked swabs. When the flocked swabs and washes of Group 1 viruses were collected on the day of admission, the sensitivity of both sample types was 100%. Wash specimens had a lower C T value and higher sensitivity than flocked swabs; however there was no statistical difference in the sensitivity of a flocked swab (89%) versus wash (93%) for the detection of Group 1 viruses, particularly when samples were collected on the same day. Flocked swabs may be a useful alternative to washes for detection of respiratory viruses in clinical settings. 
 Title: Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and nasopharyngeal wash collection methods for respiratory virus detection in hospitalized children using real-time polymerase chain reaction HHS Public Access

Ex Output:
False


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Pet owners frequently administer antimicrobials to their pets and therefore have an important role to play in promoting antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary medicine. However, best methods of educating pet owners about antimicrobial stewardship have yet to be defined. While visual materials such as brochures and posters are often used in health promotion campaigns, their effectiveness in veterinary medicine is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether pet owners noticed and retained the message of a poster with an antimicrobial stewardship message placed in veterinary clinic exam rooms. A total of 111 pet owners from five veterinary clinics (three general practices, two low-cost clinics) in the greater Philadelphia area participated in the study. Participants completed a survey asking whether they noticed the poster and if they could paraphrase its message. In a follow-up survey, an antibiotic knowledge score was calculated from answers to questions assessing their knowledge of the poster message. Baseline knowledge was assessed by asking participants to define antibiotic resistance. At the end of the study, veterinarians at participating clinics were interviewed about their experiences with the poster. Only 51 (46.4%) participants noticed the poster, and only 11 (9.9%) could partially or completely reproduce its message. No demographic or clinic-level factors were significantly associated with noticing the poster or recalling its message. Antibiotic knowledge scores were highly correlated (ρ = 0.87, p < 0.001) with baseline knowledge and not affected by viewing the poster (p = 0.955). Veterinarians expressed skepticism that the poster was effective in conveying a message of judicious antibiotic use to clients and noted no difference in the frequency with which they discussed antibiotic resistance or felt pressured to prescribe antibiotics by their clients. Posters alone will likely have limited impact in conveying a message of judicious antibiotic use to pet owners. However, they might be useful as part of an active, multi-modal education strategy, especially if complemented by veterinarian actions. 
 Title: Posters Have Limited Utility in Conveying a Message of Antimicrobial Stewardship to Pet Owners

Ex Output:

True