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.

[Q]: LGBT advocates praised the new recommendations for giving attention to a community that is often left out of sex education policies. But some parents and conservative groups assailed the more than 700-page document as an assault on parental rights, arguing it exposes children to ideas about sexuality and gender that should be taught at home. The guidance approved Wednesday by the California State Board of Education does not require educators to teach anything. It is designed as a guide for teachers to meet state standards on health education, such as nutrition, physical activity and combating alcohol and drug abuse. But it’s the parts about sex that got the most attention during a public hearing on Wednesday. The framework tells teachers that students in kindergarten can identify as transgender and offers tips for how to talk about that, adding “the goal is not to cause confusion about the gender of the child but to develop an awareness that other expressions exist.” It gives tips for discussing masturbation with middle-schoolers, including telling them it is not physically harmful, and for discussing puberty with transgender teens that creates “an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender.” “As the parent of three kids, we’re on a careful trajectory here not to be introducing things as though they are endorsed in some way,” board president Linda Darling-Hammond said. But Patricia Reyes, a 45-year-old mother of six, doesn’t believe that. She traveled more than 400 miles (about 644 kilometers) from her home in Southern California to attend Wednesday’s hearing, bringing along her 4-year-old daughter, Angeline, who held a sign that read: “Protect my innocence and childhood.” “It’s just scary what they are going to be teaching. It’s pornography,” she said. “If this continues, I’m not sending them to school.” Much of the pushback focused not on the framework, but on the books it recommends students read. An earlier draft of the document suggested high schoolers read the book: “S.E.X. : The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties.” It includes descriptions of anal sex, bondage and other sexual activity. Several parents read from the book and held it up so board members could see the pictures, which many described as “obscene.” The board responded by removing the book, plus a few others, from the guidance. “It’s important to know the board is not trying to ban books. We’re not saying that the books are bad,” board member Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon said. “But the removal will help avoid the misunderstanding that California is mandating the use of these books.” More than 200 people signed up to speak during a public hearing on Wednesday that lasted for several hours. Supporters and opponents mingled together in the lobby of the California Department of Education, where parents handed out snacks to appease their young children while waiting for their number to appear on dry-erase board telling them it was their turn to get one minute of time at the microphone. Speakers included 16-year-old Phoenix Ali Rajah, a transgender boy who said he is rarely taught information for people like him during sex education classes at his Los Angeles area high school. “I’m never taught about how to be in a relationship with gay men,” he said, adding that the “conversation with sex starts from a different place.” Michele McNutt, 49, focused on the framework’s attention to healthy relationships and consent, something she said is never too soon to teach her two daughters in public school, ages 11 and 9. “Withholding medically accurate, scientific information from them actually causes more harm and does not actually protect innocence,” she said while wearing a purple T-shirt that read “protect trans students. “If you don’t give kids accurate information about their own body ... how are they able to make good choices?” The guidance was developed with input from teachers across the state, and several spoke in favor of the recommendations on Wednesday. But not Tatyana Dzyubak, an elementary school teacher in the Sacramento area. “I shouldn’t be teaching that stuff,” she said. “That’s for parents to do.”
[A]: California overhauls sex education guidance for teachers.


[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 ."
[A]: Almost 100,000 people left Puerto Rico last year.


[Q]: The story addresses cost in multiple places. One dentist notes that using SDF “comes out to pennies per tooth.” Elsewhere, the story refers to the overall treatment as costing $25 — and notes that getting a cavity filled at the same dentist’s office costs $151. We were glad to see the cost of a traditional filling included, since it gives readers useful context. The story also notes that Oregon is, so far, the only state to reimburse Medicaid providers for treating cavities with SDF. One factor not noted is that some cavities may need to be repeatedly treated, raising the cost. In many ways, the story does a very nice job of explaining the benefits of SDF. It addresses cost, the ability to avoid anesthesia, and the ease with which it can be applied. It even discusses the limits of those benefits, noting that patients with mouth sores or a silver allergy can’t use SDF — and that patients with “severe” cavities still need fillings. The story also includes links to supporting materials, which we like to see. However, this criterion is very specifically focused on whether a story quantifies benefits, and this story does not do that–we’re given little information on the status of the medical evidence for this procedure overall. A 2009 paper, linked to from this story, looked at two clinical trials of SDF and found that it “arrested” at least 96.1 percent of cavities (i.e., prevented them from getting worse). If the story had noted that, it would have gotten an enthusiastic thumbs up here. The story clearly discusses what is, by far, the most common side effect of SDF treatment — which is that the area of the tooth affected by the cavity becomes darkened after treatment. There are, however, other potential harms. A 2016 paper noted that 3 out of 1,493 patients in studies they reviewed developed “a small, mildly painful white lesion in the mucosa,” which disappeared after 48 hours. However, that’s such a small effect size, that it’s not clear whether the lesions were caused by SDF, so we don’t fault this story for not mentioning it. There can be more significant adverse health effects if SDF is inhaled or swallowed — including respiratory problems, vomiting and diarrhea. But those effects are only relevant if SDF is not handled properly, so, again, we don’t fault the story for not mentioning it. The story includes links to supporting material — which is great — but offers little discussion of the quality of evidence in the text of the story itself. For people who are reading this story in the printed newspaper, for example, this means that there is no immediate way to determine what evidence there is for the claims being made in the story. From what we can tell, there are very few solid trials on this intervention, and think this should have been discussed in the story. No disease mongering here. This is a real strong point. The story draws on input from a variety of experts, and clearly marks their relevant affiliations. What’s missing, though, is commentary from an expert on the research behind the method. The story is effectively a comparison between the use of SDF and the use of drilling and filling to treat cavities. The story does not address the use of laser technology, in lieu of drilling, but that technique still requires the use of fillings — and would still require the patient to be still during potentially lengthy treatment (which is one reason for the use of general anesthesia in young patients). Alternatives of using nitrous oxide in the office or procedural sedation with the proper safeguards were not discussed, either. The story makes clear that the use of SDF is not widespread in the U.S., but that it is becoming increasingly available. The story makes clear that SDF is not new, focusing instead on the fact that it is increasing in popularity (and why). The story doesn’t appear to be based on a news release. And even if it were, its use of independent sources goes well beyond what would have appeared in any news release.
[A]:
A Cavity-Fighting Liquid Lets Kids Avoid Dentists’ Drills