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 Input:
Paragraph: "U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith told Fox News on May 20 that the United States needs Mexico's help in stopping their citizens from entering the United States illegally but that ""we get just the opposite. """"They hand out brochures showing individuals how they can avoid our Border Patrol, how they can get into our country,"" Smith said May 20, referring to the Mexican government. His statement came to our attention from Lainey Melnick of Austin, the Democratic nominee challenging Smith in November.Smith backed off his statement slightly when the Fox News interviewer, Bill Hemmer, asked: ""You are saying that the Mexican government is passing out leaflets on how to cross the border?"" Smith's reply: ""They have done that in the past, on how to, of course how to be safe, and maybe how to get food and water, but also how to avoid detection. ""Has Mexico really been giving its citizens advice on how to sneak into the United States without running into the Border Patrol? We looked into it.In response to our inquiry, Jamie Zuieback, who works for Smith as an aide to the House Judiciary Committee, pointed us to an opinion piece that aired on National Public Radio on Jan. 27, 2005. In it, commentator Gustavo Arellano reacts to a pamphlet produced by the Mexican foreign ministry called ""Guia del Migrante Mexicano,"" or ""Guide for the Mexican Migrant."" Earlier that month, The New York Times reported that about 1.5 million copies of the guide had been distributed across Mexico in December 2004.In his commentary, Arellano said the 32-page booklet ""advises Mexicans who are thinking of leaving their homeland on the best ways to do it."" Arrellano noted that the publication riled some American lawmakers, who described it as a manual on how to enter the country illegally -- a position aired at the time by then-U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., in an opinion article published in the Jan. 9, 2005, Austin American-Statesman. (Hayworth is challenging U.S. Sen. John McCain in Arizona's 2010 Republican primary. )Several weeks later, Francisco Alejo, who was then the Austin-based Mexican consul general, responded to Hayworth with an opinion piece in the Statesman. He wrote: ""In no way does the guide promote undocumented immigration into the United States. As it is clearly stated in the guide’s introduction and on the back cover, the safe and appropriate way to enter any country -- including the United States -- is with a valid passport and visa. ""Alejo said the guide was produced to advise ""people of the risks involved in, as well as the legal consequences of, crossing into the United States."" His article also said the Mexican government had produced similar guides in the past. Marc Rosenblum, senior policy analyst at the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies international migration, said his reading was that the purpose of the brochure was humanitarian, to prevent migrants from being stranded in the desert or dying.In the January 2005 Times article, Geronimo Gutierrez, then Mexico’s undersecretary for North American affairs, said that the year before, ""over 300 Mexicans died in their attempt to enter the United States, the vast majority if not all of them in search of a job. ... The Mexican government obviously has an obligation to take all actions possible in order to avoid the loss of life.’’ Let's recap. Smith first said that the Mexican government is currently handing out leaflets telling people how to avoid the U.S. Border Patrol and ""get into the country."" He amended that to say that Mexico has handed out such leaflets in the past and that they included information on how to ""be safe."" And the Mexican government acknowledged a few years ago that it was distributing information about safely crossing the border.That leaves two significant questions. Are the leaflets still being distributed? And do they -- or did they ever -- advise border-crossers how to get into the country while avoiding detection?Seeking answers, we tried to find a current copy of the handout, which is no longer available on the Mexican government's website. However, we resurrected the pamphlet using an Internet archiving tool. We then matched the Spanish text of the document with an English translation of excerpts published in the Times in 2005, supplemented with translation by Spanish-speaking colleagues at the American-Statesman.The introduction to the brochure we found -- it's undated -- says it was designed to dispense ""practical advice"" and notes that the safe way to enter another country is to do so legally, by acquiring a passport in Mexico and a visa from the destination country. It is illustrated with comics-like drawings.It warns migrants of the perils of crossing over. For instance, they are told that crossing the river -- unnamed in the brochure, but presumably the Rio Grande -- can be perilous and that wet, heavy clothing makes floating or swimming difficult. For desert crossers, this section advises migrants ""to walk during hours when the heat is not too intense. ""It also describes the dangers of getting involved with human smugglers and advises migrants not to use false documents or carry packages for someone else. If detained, they are told not to resist arrest or try to escape, and that they have certain rights while in custody. And there are tips for migrants to keep a low profile once they are settled in the U.S.: Avoid noisy parties, fighting, domestic violence, carrying weapons, illegal activities, driving while drinking or driving without a license or insurance.There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.When we noted the lack of such specific advice, Zuieback, Smith's committee aide, pointed out illustrations that she said show ""illegal immigrants watching the border for an opening to enter and, later, running from the Border Patrol."" She also said the advice to cross the desert when the heat is less severe is ""a clear message to cross at night. ""Zuieback also interpreted the tips on keeping a low profile as information on ""how to avoid detection by law enforcement while in the United States. ""As for showing migrants how to ""get into our country"" -- per Smith's statement to Fox News -- the closest such reference we spotted was a sentence urging people to ""use power lines, train tracks or dirt roads as guides"" if they get lost.Next, we tried to find out whether the migrant guide was still being distributed. Zuieback said Smith was not aware of ""additional publications"" since the guide prompted a flurry of news articles in 2005. However, we came across 2005 reports of similar publications by at least one Mexican state, Yucatan.Using Google Scholar, we found an academic article on the ""Guide for the Mexican Migrant"" published in 2009 by Bruno Lutz, a professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University in Xochimilco, on the outskirts of Mexico City. Lutz wrote that the brochure was published and distributed from 2004 to 2006; that was confirmed by Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington. When President Felipe Calderon came to power in 2006, the paper says, the guide was substituted on the government's website with a guide for the ""Mexican traveler,"" which Lutz describes as ""limited to giving very general indications about required visas and tourist attractions in each country. ""We then read the ""Guia del Viajero Mexicano"" on the website of Mexico's foreign ministry and found information on travel alerts, consular services and visa requirements, but nothing on illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.So where does that leave us? Smith was right when he told Fox News that the Mexican government handed out brochures offering advice to people planning to immigrate to the United States without authorization. And there is an element of truth in Smith’s statement that the information in the pamphlet shows people, as Smith says, ""how they can get into our country,"" but the part of the publication that deals with crossing the border focuses on safety.Significantly, Smith incorrectly declared, initially, that Mexico currently gives out the guide. We found no evidence to support that statement.Also, the congressman's description of the ""Guia del Migrante Mexicano"" -- that it tells how to avoid the Border Patrol -- was misleading. While two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. In fact, it advises cooperation if apprehended." Claim: "Mexican government officials ""hand out brochures showing individuals how they can avoid our Border Patrol, how they can get into our country."

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story does not mention the costs of screening or follow-up tests or treatment – to the individual or, collectively, to society. Those costs are significant. This story uses several different statistics and expert perspectives to explain what the researchers found in their examination of the effects of mammography screening. It not only include the relative risk reduction (10 percent) and an absolute risk reduction statistic (among women in their 50s, a decade of screening would boost the likelihood of avoiding a fatal breast cancer from 995.6 out of 1,000 to 996 out of 1,000), but it also offered comments from different experts about how they would personally value effects of that size. The story notes that screening mammography exposes women to false alarms scares as well as the risks and harms of treating tumors that actually would not have become life-threatening. This story explains how this study is different from earlier research on mammography. It points out both advantages of the study methods (comparing women in regions with screening to those without as Norway rolled out a national program over a 9 year period) and limitations (an observational study like this is not as powerful as a randomized trial, and the study might have found more benefits to screening if it had lasted longer). The story also noted the uncertainty in the numbers the researchers reported and that the real differences might be different. The story does not exaggerate the risk of breast cancer or the need to be screened for it. The story includes comments from several independent sources offering a variety of perspectives. It does not mention that the study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story notes that improved treatments appear to have reduced the breast cancer death rate even among women who did not have regular screening mammograms. Not being screened was clearly acknowledged as an alternative, something not all competing stories explicitly addressed. The availability of mammography screening is not at issue. This story does point out that the women who were screened in Norway had access to special treatment teams. And it noted that these treatments are available at “many major medical centers in the United States.”  Mammography is not new, but this story does a good job of explaining what is new about the way these researchers examined the effects of screening. The story includes comments from several sources and does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Mammogramsâ€™ Value in Cancer Fight at Issue

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: In a TV message on Monday evening watched by more than 27 million people, Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered people to stay at home, told nearly all shops to close and banned social gatherings including weddings and baptisms. However, public transport in London was busy during the morning rush hour and the streets were far from deserted amid confusion over the government’s advice to workers. The death toll from coronavirus in the United Kingdom has jumped by 87 to a total of 422 - the biggest daily increase since the crisis began. Meanwhile, the economic devastation was underscored by a survey that suggested the economy was shrinking at a record pace, faster than during the 2008-09 financial crisis. The unprecedented peacetime restrictions announced by Johnson, which will last at least three weeks, are intended to stop the state-run National Health Service (NHS), which suffers from staff shortages at the best of times, being overwhelmed. “These measures are not advice, they are rules and will be enforced, including by the police,” health minister Matt Hancock told parliament. At a news conference later, Hancock announced plans to open a temporary hospital next week at the Excel Centre, a huge venue in east London normally used for trade fairs and similar events. “With the help of the military and with NHS clinicians we will make sure that we have the capacity that we need so that everyone can get the support they need,” he said. British Transport Police said 500 officers will be deployed to train stations across the country to remind the public of the government’s advice to travel only when essential. Hancock called for 250,000 volunteers to help the NHS with tasks such as delivering medicines from pharmacies, driving patients to and from hospital appointments and phoning people isolating at home to check up on them. “If you are well and able to do so safely, I would urge you to sign up today to help the most vulnerable people in our communities as an NHS Volunteer Responder,” Hancock said. He also said the government had bought 3.5 million coronavirus antibody tests so that people who suspect they have had the virus would be able to find out for sure. Despite the message for people to stay at home, some roads were still busy and utility workmen and others were still mingling close together. Social media images showed the capital’s underground trains were packed with passengers closer than the 2-metre (6-foot) recommended distance apart and the government said “appropriate” construction work should continue. “The government needs to urgently provide clearer guidance on who should be working and who shouldn’t,” said Rebecca Long-Bailey, the opposition Labour Party’s business policy chief. “No one should be asked to work if they are not providing an essential function in this crisis.”  Under the curbs on movement, people should leave their homes only for very limited reasons such as going to supermarkets for vital supplies or for exercise once a day. Police, who will be able to issue fines of 30 pounds ($35), will now be able to break up gatherings of more than two people. A snap YouGov poll found that 93 percent of Britons supported the measures but were split on whether fines would be a sufficient deterrent. Supermarkets, where shelves have been stripped bare by  panic-buying in recent days, said they had begun limiting the number of shoppers in stores at any one time, erecting barriers outside, and installing screens at checkouts to protect staff. Last week, the government announced billions of pounds of help for businesses and said it would help to pay the wages of employees, giving grants to cover 80% of a worker’s salary if they were kept on as staff. But critics said it did not provide support for the self-employed, who total about 5 million in Britain compared to roughly 28 million employees, meaning they either had to keep working or risk losing all income. Finance minister Rishi Sunak told parliament the government was working on measures to help self-employed people, but said these had to be practical and fair. Claim: UK calls for 250,000 volunteers as virus deaths surge.

Ex Output:

2