Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "A Facebook user declared, ""I’m starting a public movement called TAKE IT OFF,"" in attempting a six-point takedown of facial coverings and how effective they are in fighting COVID-19. The post features an image labeled ""Face Mask Safety — Know The Facts Before You Wear One."" The image makes this six-part claim about masks: ""Decreases oxygen intake; increases toxin inhalation; shuts down immune system; increases virus risk; scientifically inaccurate; effectiveness not studied."" The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) ""Well, that all sounds like a lot of dangerous nonsense,"" Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman told PolitiFact. As we’ve reported, facial coverings are not in themselves totally effective in fighting the coronavirus and there is a need for more study. But health officials largely agree that wearing any kind of face mask, coupled with social distancing and frequent hand-washing, is more protective than going unmasked. While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend masks for children under age 2 or for people who are unconscious or have breathing conditions, it generally recommends wearing masks in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations. As the CDC puts it: ""Your cloth face covering may protect them. Their cloth face covering may protect you."" Here’s a rundown on why each part of the post is wrong. ""Breathing through a mask decreases the amount of oxygen we need to live & be healthy, increases blood acidity & makes breathing difficult."" A mask does not reduce oxygen intake nor does it make blood more acidic, virologist Angela Rasmussen, a research scientist at Columbia University, told PolitiFact. Neuman said a mask ""will add some resistance to the breathing process, meaning it may feel like it takes a bit more work to take a breath, but it won't materially change the makeup of air that comes through the mask."" ""Toxins that we normally exhale as we breathe become trapped in the mask and re-inhaled into the lungs, increasing symptoms."" Repeated, long-term usage of the same unwashed mask could potentially lead to bacteria accumulating on the inside, which is why paper masks shouldn’t be reused and cloth masks should be laundered with soap between uses, Rasmussen said. ""However, there’s no reason to worry about ‘toxins,’’ she said. ""The only potentially toxic molecule that you routinely exhale is carbon dioxide, which is only toxic when it displaces oxygen,"" and it easily passes through the mask. Neuman also said carbon dioxide would not be trapped by a mask. ""Decreases oxygen intake, increases carbon dioxide & toxin intake putting body under stress, releasing cortisol & shutting down immune processes."" Not true. ""There’s no decreased oxygen or increased carbon dioxide from normal breathing while wearing a mask, and no evidence that masks have any effect on the immune system or immune function,"" Rasmussen said. Inhaling high levels of carbon dioxide is dangerous, but this is very unlikely to happen from wearing a cloth face mask — especially if you’re only wearing it for short periods of time, according to the Cleveland Clinic. There are studies that show that medical N95 respirators may result in increased carbon dioxide, which can lead to headaches and fatigue. This is one reason they're not recommended for home use,"" University of San Francisco research scientist Jeremy Howard told PolitiFact. ""Cloth masks, on the other hand, have excellent breathability and the same problems have not been demonstrated with them."" A USA Today fact-check said a similar claim, that masks weaken the immune system, was . ""Encourages triggering & infection from dormant retro viruses already in the body, taking advantage of a weakened immune system due to mask wearing."" Masks can be effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 because COVID-19 spreads mainly from person to person through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, according to the CDC. The droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. ""It’s absurd to think that masks would ‘trigger’ their activation and cause disease, especially since mask-wearing has no effect on immune system function,"" Rasmussen said. ""Virologists measure COVID-19 to be 80-140nm in size making the weave of material masks to be the equivalent of a chain-link fence to a mosquito."" (NM is a reference to the nanometer measure of diameter.) Rasmussen said virus particles are much smaller than the weave of masks, but infected people do not shed individual virus particles into the environment — they shed them in respiratory droplets. Masks prevent most, but not all, of these respiratory droplets from being dispersed into the environment. ""In addition, although we don’t know how many virus particles it takes to cause an infection, it’s almost certainly more than one. So you have to be exposed to enough respiratory droplets containing enough virus to establish an infection to actually become infected. Reducing droplet dispersal by wearing a mask greatly reduces this exposure risk, though it does not eliminate it completely,"" she said. Neuman said there is a growing number of research papers that demonstrate the effectiveness of surgical face masks in preventing transmission of a range of viruses, or demonstrate the effectiveness of face covering in limiting the novel coronavirus spread. ""Absolutely no peer-reviewed studies have been carried out of mask effectiveness within a social environment to control, prevent or eliminate the spread of disease."" Both papers cited by Neuman are published and peer reviewed. One was published in April by the journal Nature and the other on June 11 by the National Academy of Sciences. In terms of being ""within a social environment,"" 246 individuals provided exhaled breath samples in the first study, roughly half with masks and half without; the second study was a review of coronavirus mitigation efforts undertaken in Wuhan, China, Italy and New York City. Said Rasmussen: ""It’s true that to my knowledge masks have not been subjected to a large, randomized clinical trial, but a growing body of evidence does suggest that masks substantially reduce droplet spread."" A Facebook post claimed that wearing masks for the coronavirus ""decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system, increases virus risk, scientifically inaccurate, effectiveness not studied."" There is no evidence to back any of the six parts of the claim." Claim: Wearing masks for the coronavirus “decreases oxygen intake, increases toxin inhalation, shuts down immune system, increases virus risk, scientifically inaccurate, effectiveness not studied.”
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In recent weeks, vaccine opponents have made several unsubstantiated claims, including allegations that vaccine trials will be dangerously rushed or that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, is blocking cures to enrich vaccine makers. They’ve also falsely claimed that Microsoft founder Bill Gates wants to use a vaccine to inject microchips into people — or to cull 15% of the world’s population. Vaccine opponents in the U.S. have been around for a long time. Their claims range from relatively modest safety concerns about specific vaccines or the risk of side effects to conspiracy theories that border on the bizarre. The movement is receiving renewed attention, especially as it aligns itself with groups loudly protesting restrictions on daily life aimed at controlling the spread of the virus. Health professionals say vaccine misinformation could have lethal consequences if it leads people to opt for bogus cures instead. “Only a coronavirus vaccine can truly protect us from future outbreaks,” said Dr. Scott Ratzan, a physician and medical misinformation expert at the City University of New York and Columbia University. “But what if the effort succeeds and large numbers of people decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children?” While vaccines for diseases such as polio, smallpox and measles have benefited millions, some skeptics reject the science, citing a distrust of modern medicine and government. Others say mandatory vaccine requirements violate their religious freedom. Rita Palma, the leader of the anti-vaccine group in Long Island called My Kids, My Choice, is among those who say their families won’t get the coronavirus vaccine. “Many of us are anxiety stricken at the thought of being forced to get a vaccine,” Palma said. “I will never choose to have a COVID-19 vaccine. I don’t want the government forcing it on my community or my family.” From the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, vaccine skeptics have tailored several long-standing claims about vaccine safety to fit the current outbreak. When the first U.S. case was announced in January, some alleged the coronavirus was manufactured and that patents for it could be found online. Thousands of deaths later, vaccine opponents are endorsing unapproved treatments, second-guessing medical experts and pushing fears about mandatory vaccinations. They’ve also latched onto protests against stay-at-home orders in the U.S. “The coronavirus has created this perfect storm of misinformation,” remarked David A. Broniatowski, an associate professor at George Washington University’s school of engineering and applied science who has published several studies on vaccine misinformation. Last week, an anti-vaccine activist was arrested in Idaho after repeatedly refusing police orders to leave a playground closed because of the pandemic. The woman, who was there with other families, is affiliated with two groups that protested at the Idaho Statehouse against stay-at-home orders. Facebook groups formed to organize the protests have been peppered with vaccine hoaxes and myths. Perhaps no one plays a bigger role in the conspiracy theories than Gates, who is funding vaccine research. The online movement has centered concerns around a COVID-19 vaccine on false claims that Gates is planning to microchip people with the vaccine or use it to reduce the world’s population. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine critic who helped popularize unsubstantiated claims that vaccines can cause autism, said Gates’ work gives him “dictatorial control of global health policy.” Roger Stone, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, went further on a New York City radio show, saying Gates “and other globalists” are using the coronavirus “for mandatory vaccinations and microchipping people.” Such wild theories can have real-world effects. False rumors that Gates hoped to test an experimental vaccine in South Africa became mainstream after a news site erroneously reported the claim. One of the country’s political parties then sent a letter to President Cyril Rampahosa demanding answers about “deals” struck with Gates. In fact, Gates and his wife are financing a vaccine trial in Philadelphia and Kansas City, Missouri, not South Africa. He also suggested creating a database of people immune to the virus, not implanting microchips. On Monday, during remarks recognizing World Immunization Week, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus criticized vaccine skeptics for spreading misinformation at a time when many families are delaying or skipping routine childhood immunizations because they’re afraid of COVID-19 exposure in doctors’ offices. “Myths and misinformation about vaccines are adding fuel to the fire,” he said. Health experts have repeatedly said there is no evidence the coronavirus was intentionally created or spread. They also insist that vaccines are not only safe, but essential to global health. “Vaccine researchers and anyone who is a vaccine advocate cares deeply about vaccine safety,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia physician and co-inventor of a vaccine for rotavirus, which kills hundreds of thousands of children annually. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. But it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death for some people, especially older adults and people with existing health problems. The vaccine debate is fertile ground for groups looking to sow discord in the United States. Russia seized on it to create divisions before the 2016 U.S. election, and appears to be at it again. A report from a European Union disinformation task force found numerous conspiracy theories in English-language Russian media, including state-run RT, claiming an eventual vaccine will be used to inject nanoparticles into people. “When pro-Kremlin disinformation outlets spread anti-vaccine tropes, they become responsible for those who will hesitate to seek professional medical care,” the EU report said. Claim: Groups sow doubt about COVID vaccine before one even exists.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In such a short piece, discussions of cost are almost always missing, but they were missing as well in the competing WSJ article. The CBS story says that the study “looked” at eight women. But this is an incomplete description. The study involved 125,426 samples from which abnormal results (typically indicating a chromosomal disorder in the fetus) were detected in 3757 (3%). Ten cancers were subsequently identified in women whose babies were found to be normal despite an abnormal test result, with further analysis done on the eight women mentioned in the story. Without this quantitative data, readers have no sense of the rarity of the eight cases described or of the scope of the benefit that might be realized if such testing were offered more widely. Unlike the WSJ article, there was not even a hint that widespread use of these tests might pose harms as well as benefits, as well as higher costs and ethical dilemmas. The story focuses on the serious impact of the test on a woman’s life and on her ability to “be there” for her child as she battles her cancer. In the sense that this story was more about the potential life-saving aspect of the study for women with hidden cancers, it provides useful information. But so much copy spent on telling the woman’s story meant less space to provide all-important context. Nothing on the study’s strengths or limitations or what the research means more broadly. For example:  Non-invasive prenatal testing is a new kind of screening test that is sometimes offered to women over 35 or at risk for a child with Down syndrome. About 3% of women screened have an abnormal result suggesting a fetal abnormality. This was the first large-scale study to confirm that in a small number of such cases, the abnormal test result is caused instead by an undiagnosed cancer in the mother. The story focuses on an individual woman’s story, and provides no perspective on the rarity of her case. Although it may be an underestimate, cancer was reported in only 0.008% of the samples analyzed. The story needed some acknowledgment that this is an exceedingly rare occurrence. The story noted that the study was funded by the manufacturer of the test and that the study author quoted has a relationship with the company. That’s useful context, but we require an independent voice to meet our standard on this criterion. No one was quoted except one of the study’s authors. No alternatives to the blood tests were mentioned in any context. The WSJ story, by contrast, notes that the blood tests are now used in place of more invasive amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling to identify fetuses at risk. The WSJ also underscores the importance of having a positive blood test confirmed with one of these more invasive tests. Not undergoing testing at all might also be an option, but the story does not address this. Although the availability of these new tests is not specifically addressed, the story does note that “prenatal testing is widely used for pregnant women at risk of having babies with chromosome disorders” — implying that the new tests are one such option. We’ll award a Satisfactory on that basis. The story could also have noted that the new test are recommended by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for some women. Usually they are offered for women over 35 or with other risk factors for a fetus with Down syndrome or certain other chromosomal abnormalities. The story establishes what is new here and made reference to the research done at Tufts and reported in JAMA. The story may have been suggested by a release, but clearly focused almost entirely on interviews with a mother and the principal investigator. Claim: Prenatal testing can detect cancer in pregnant mothers
[EX A]:
0