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 Input:
None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues


Ex Input:
The state’s Health and Human Services Department reports the person attended the Quilt Show at the Western North Carolina Agricultural Center in late September. To date, it’s the only case of Legionnaires’ disease in an individual who didn’t attend the fair, but was at the WNC Ag Center after it ended on Sept. 15. Health officials visited the WNC Ag Center Sept. 25 and 27 and didn’t identify any sources of aerosolized water. The N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services suspended rental of the Davis Event Center after Legionella bacteria were found in one of six samples.

Ex Output:
Legionnaires’ disease found in person who didn’t attend fair.


Ex Input:
"Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo says women in New York state don’t have to worry about new Trump administration rules ending a federal requirement that employers must include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans. The new rules exempt employers from the Obama-era mandate if they have religious or moral reservations to the coverage. But Cuomo said contraception will still be covered in New York state. ""This year, we ensured that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care,"" Cuomo said in a statement. States can set certain insurance standards beyond what the federal government requires. New York state told insurance companies in January they are required to cover birth control and abortion services. That condition still stands, but is Cuomo right that women in New York state are not affected by Trump’s decision? Limits to state regulation State regulations, like the one from January, do not apply to all plans. The state Department of Financial Services regulates everything sold on the state health exchange, called New York State of Health. That includes plans sold to individuals and companies with 100 or fewer employees. The agency says the state’s birth control mandate covers 1.35 million residents in those plans. Health care offered through companies with more than 100 employees is more complicated. Companies that go the traditional route of buying health coverage through an insurance carrier must adhere to the rules. About 2.5 million people in that category are covered by the state’s birth control mandate. But companies that are self-insured, where the employer assumes a large part of the costs, are not regulated by the state, meaning they need not adhere to the state's birth control mandate. About 60 percent of private sector workers in the U.S. who get their health coverage through an employer were enrolled in a self-insured plan in 2015. That’s up from 46 percent in 1996, according to research from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. In New York state, about 54 percent of private sector employees who get health insurance through their employer had a self-insured plan last year, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The option is most popular for companies with at least 1,000 employees. Eighty percent of private sector employees at companies that size in New York state are enrolled in a self-insured plan. What about public health insurance? The federal government sets the baseline for what services are covered under Medicaid. Government workers are covered under state regulation, but Medicaid and Medicare enrollees are not.States can add to that list. The list of services covered by Medicaid in New York state goes well beyond the federal standard. New York is one of multiple states where Medicaid covers birth control and abortion services. About a third of the state’s population alone is on Medicaid. Our ruling Cuomo said women in New York state ""will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care"" because of an action the state took earlier this year. But not every woman is in an insurance plan regulated by the state. It’s possible a self-insured large employer in New York state could apply for an exemption from the federal birth control mandate. If granted the exemption, the company would not have to provide health coverage for birth control to its employees. Those exemptions are not expected to be widespread, but they are possible. Cuomo’s statement needs clarification."

Ex Output:

Women in our state will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care