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:
"Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supporters and opponents of gun control have thrown out statistics to support their point of view. Here’s one that caught our eye, offered by liberal commentator Mark Shields on the Dec. 21, 2012, edition of the PBS NewsHour. Shields told host Judy Woodruff, ""You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted."" Is the death toll that high? Let's examine each half of his comparison. Deaths from warfare  We found a comprehensive study of war-related deaths published by the Congressional Research Service on Feb. 26, 2010, and we supplemented that with data for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan using the website icasualties.org. Where possible, we’ve used the broadest definition of ""death"" -- that is, all war-related deaths, not just those that occurred in combat. Here’s a summary of deaths by major conflict:  4,435 2,260 13,283 525,000 2,446 116,516 405,399 36,574 58,220 383 2,175 4,486 1,171,177 Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference. Gunfire deaths  The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We’ve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC. Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms: We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths -- not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone. When we rated a previous Facebook post, we lowered an otherwise  claim because it said that ""nearly 100,000 people get shot every year."" We found that the number of gun deaths and non-fatal injuries added up to 104,852, but we concluded that the term ""get shot"" could suggest victims who got shot by someone else rather than by their own hand. We don’t see a similar problem with the way Shields’ comment was phrased -- namely, ""died from gunfire."" Our ruling Since Shields’ comparison was otherwise accurate, with about 1.4 million firearm deaths to 1.2 million in war."

Ex Output:
"Since 1968, ""more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history."


Ex Input:
Leaf appeared Thursday at C.M. Russell High School in Great Falls for the first time in more than 20 years, The Great Falls Tribune reported Friday. In a speech titled, “Lying to Myself,” Leaf discussed his football career as a star at Washington State University, Heisman Trophy finalist and second-overall pick in the 1998 NFL draft by the San Diego Chargers. Four years later he was out of professional football and became addicted to prescription pills, which led to burglary and drug charges and a prison sentence, Leaf said. He recalled attending a boxing match in Las Vegas in the time shortly after hanging it up in the NFL and being booed loudly by the crowd as the announcer recognized celebrities in attendance. At an after-fight party, he took a Vicodin, and for the next eight years, kept trying to chase that high, he said. “I was a drug addict long before I ever took a drug,” Leaf said. “I didn’t know any better.” Leaf’s goal in telling his story was to connect with the audience and “try to give back to a community that I took so much from and victimized,” he said. He also spoke about the need for more discussion of mental health issues in Montana. “There is a mental health epidemic in this state,” Leaf said. “We need to come together as a community.” He does not practice a specific religion but spoke of spirituality, community and accountability. Leaf found his calling working as an assistant to a substance abuse counselor in prison, he said. He is now a program ambassador for Transcend Recovery, an addiction treatment center in Los Angeles where he worked after getting sober. As a pro athlete, “I was making $5 million a year and was miserable,” Leaf said. “Now, I was making $15 an hour and felt valued.” ___ Information from: Great Falls Tribune, http://www.greatfallstribune.com

Ex Output:
Former NFL player Ryan Leaf gives speech on  substance abuse.


Ex Input:
"New airport security measures are coming under fire from pilots and passengers, who fear the latest post-9/11 protocols are too invasive and potentially harmful. You've probably seen the stories. The Transportation Security Administration's new full-body scanners, which are in use at 68 airports nationwide, transfer a potentially harmful amount of radiation and produce what amounts to a naked image, critics say. And the alternative to the scan, an embarrassing pat down, may be even worse. Pilots' unions oppose the measures, as do an increasing number of passengers -- who feel the federal government has taken things too far. PolitiFact can't weigh in on that. But we can explore the safety concerns about the full-body scan. Particularly, we found worth analyzing the defense mounted by John Pistole, head of the TSA. During a Nov. 16, 2010, interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Pistole said the ""radiation coming from those machines are equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet."" The TSA, on its website, says the radiation emitted from the body scan is equivalent to just two minutes of a plane flight. Are those claims credible? Yes. Though there is some disagreement. Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan. We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective. A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray. What's also important to note -- and a bit scary -- is that you're being exposed to radiation right now. Radiation is naturally occurring in our environment no matter where you are. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that each year, the average adult is exposed to 300 millirems of naturally occurring radiation (300,000 microrems) and 60 millirems (60,000 microrems) of man-made radiation. Pistole, in his claim, is talking about naturally occurring cosmic radiation you're exposed to during airplane travel. The amount of cosmic radiation a person is exposed to varies based on a number of factors, but to oversimplify, a key component is how high you are above sea level. People living in Denver, which is 1 mile above sea level, are exposed to more cosmic radiation than someone living in Florida. And people flying 30,000 feet in the air are exposed to more radiation than people on the ground. The amount of radiation varies depending upon the specific flight plan, but the Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all say that a person on a six- to eight-hour flight will be exposed to somewhere around 2,000 to 5,000 microrems of radiation. For our analysis, however, we are relying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which calculates the radiation exposure per hour based on the altitude of the flight. According to NOAA, a person flying at 30,000 feet will be exposed to between 285 and 406 microrems of radiation an hour, or between 4.75 and 6.77 microrems per minute of flight. All the numbers and science back up Pistole's claim -- as little as three minutes of air travel produces the equivalent amount of radiation as one TSA body scan. By most estimates, Pistole's claim actually is conservative. However, all scientists aren't sold on the comparison. Nor are they sold on the safety of the scanners. We think it's important for you hear their side, too. Four faculty members at the University of California, San Francisco, authored a letter in April expressing their concerns about the body scanning devices. Primarily, the professors worried that the radiation was being concentrated in the skin and underlying tissue, and that it was not being dispersed throughout the entire body. That concentration of radiation to the skin could be ""dangerously high,"" wrote the faculty members -- John Sedat, Marc Shuman, Robert Stroud and David Agard, who said a comparison to cosmic radiation spread over the entire body is misleading. The FDA, in a detailed response, said the concerns were unfounded, and health risks associated with the full body scanners were ""minuscule."" To be clear, this fact check isn't declaring TSA's new full-body scanners safe. We're simply looking at the comparative exposure to radiation as suggested by Pistole, who said that the radiation coming from the new TSA body scanners ""are equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet."" It may sound strange, but it's right."

Ex Output:

"The radiation coming from the new TSA body scanners is ""equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet."