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'.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Univision journalist Jorge Ramos said President Donald Trump’s promised border wall is built on a false premise. Ramos appeared on Fox News on May 12 and told Tucker Carlson that there is ""no invasion"" of immigrants coming illegally. Ramos said the number of immigrants in the country illegally has been stable, at about 11 million, over the past half decade, and more Mexicans are leaving than coming to the United States (which we have rated True). ""You know, whatever we’re doing at the border somehow is working. Some of the safest communities in the United States are along the border,"" Ramos said. ""So, I don't think a wall is really going to help."" Studies show immigrants are less likely to commit crime than the native-born population, though the Trump administration often backs its tough stance against illegal immigration with claims that immigrants bring a wave of crime and threaten public safety. We wanted to know if the border region has some of the country’s safest communities, as Ramos claimed. FBI data shows they have lower violent crime rates than other places (though the FBI has cautioned against making safety comparisons), and some local crime statistics show drops in crime in recent years. One possible explanation: Border towns have a heavier presence of federal and local law enforcement. The U.S.-Mexico region includes the four U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas and six Mexican states. Some estimates pin the population in the border region (from both Mexico and the United States) at more than 15 million people, as of 2015. Many of the residents live on one side of the border and work on the other, with likely 1 million legal border crossings daily. Ramos has a point that these communities tend to be safe. The most common kinds of crime are those that ail other poor communities, such as drinking and driving, and domestic violence, said Tony Payan, a fellow and director of the Mexico Center at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. ""The murder rates, however, are indeed very low,"" Payan said. He said it’s very difficult to tell exactly why those communities don’t have high levels of crime, but would not disregard as a deterrent the heavy presence of law enforcement. ""But it may also have to do with other issues like the crime levels among migrants,"" Payan said. ""It is well known, contrary to what Mr. Trump may say, that crime among migrant communities is lower than that among natives. And those communities tend to have very high migrant communities and foreign-born populations."" When we asked Ramos about his comment, he pointed to reports in the Huffington Post and the Texas Tribune. The April 2015 Huffington Post report quotes former U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner David Aguilar at a 2015 Border Security Expo event. Aguilar reportedly said that border communities are safer than the interior of each of the border states — as well as Washington, D.C. — and ""violent crime is lesser along the border than it is in the interior."" Robert Harris, then a commander heading a joint task force for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Huffington Post that violence on the Mexican side of the border did not reach the United States sector because criminal groups were less organized in the United States. The February 2016 Texas Tribune analysis offered some support for Ramos’ statement. The Tribune article said that based on state and federal data, violent crime rates in many border cities either remained the same or dropped between 2009 and 2014 -- setting them apart from larger cities in the state. In Houston, for instance, the violent crime rate was at 991 crimes for every 100,000 residents, according to data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. The border cities of Laredo, El Paso, Edinburg and Brownsville recorded fewer than 400 crimes for every 100,000 residents, the Tribune said. It’s important to keep in mind that the FBI has warned against using its data to rank and compare the safety of communities, because such comparisons may neglect unique factors in each locale. CQ Press years ago ceased using the words ""safest"" and ""dangerous"" in its annual rankings of cities with the lowest and highest crime rate. Our colleagues at PolitiFact Texas considered the FBI’s cautionary note in a past fact-check of a claim that El Paso is the safest city in Texas and in the United States. PolitiFact Texas rated that claim Half True, because it was based on CQ Press’ past lists and related news stories that labeled El Paso the safest. Also, the rankings did not factor in every Texas burg and did not account for differences in population density, PolitiFact Texas found. (PolitiFact Texas analyzed crime in Texas in another fact-check in 2014, rating Half True a claim about less crime in the Rio Grande Valley than in other major Texas cities.) In its report, the Tribune also noted that border communities have a large presence of local and federal law enforcement officers. Ponce Treviño, Webb County Jail commander, told the news organization: ""You've got to understand, we're a border city so we have a lot of local law enforcement. You have Laredo (Police Department). You have Webb County Sheriff's Office. You've got the constables. Then you have the federal government here. You've got customs. You've got border patrol. You've got ICE. You have a big influx of law enforcement and there's officer presence, so that makes the crime rate a lot lower."" In 2011, the Austin American-Statesman analyzed all 14 counties sharing a border with Mexico and two dozen border cities. It found that between 2006 and 2010, violent crime on the U.S. side fell 3.3 percent. The combined number of murders in the 14 counties also dropped, from 97 in 2006 to 73 in 2010, according to the newspaper. The newspaper said its data analysis did not paint a picture of ""out-of-control chaos"" at the border, although some areas did see a rise in crime. ""Violent crime increased in seven border counties, although those tended to be among the region's least populated, so a small number of incidents can have an outsize effect on rates,"" the Statesman reported. ""Aggravated assaults, in particular, spiked in Starr County and the city of El Paso, the latter long held up as a paragon of border safety."" While violent crime overall decreased in the border, it ""badly trailed"" the more than 12 percent statewide decrease in that same timeframe, the newspaper found. Ramos said, ""Some of the safest communities in the United States are along the border."" Violent crime rates in some border communities are lower than in other parts of the United States, according to FBI data. The FBI has warned against using its crime rates to rank communities’ safety because doing so overlooks other factors. Yet, local law enforcement officials have said crime is low in their border communities, and heavy federal and local law enforcement presence may be deterring crime in border communities." Claim: Some of the safest communities in the United States are along the border.

Output: 2


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: As the new coronavirus, which is responsible for the disease COVID-19, spreads worldwide, so too has viral advice for combating the pandemic. One frequently copied and pasted bit of text that has gone viral on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp suggests a simple self-check for coronavirus infection, usually attributed to “Taiwan Experts,” “Stanford University,” or “Stanford Hospital Board,” among others: The new Coronavirus may not show signs of infection for many days. How can you know if you are infected? By the time you have fever and/or cough and go to the hospital, the lung is usually 50% fibrosis. Taiwan experts provide a simple self-check that we can do every morning: Take a deep breath and hold it for more than 10 seconds. If you do this successfully without coughing, without discomfort, stiffness or tightness, there is no fibrosis in the lungs; it basically indicates no infection. In critical times, please self-check every morning in an environment with clean air. Stanford Health Care, for their part, explicitly stated they had nothing to do with the email: A widely distributed email about COVID-19 that is attributed to a “Stanford Hospital board member” contains inaccurate information. It did not come from Stanford Medicine. The viral text is often combined with other frequently recurring coronavirus claims including a paragraph attributed to “serious excellent advice by Japanese doctors” about keeping your throat moist, and a set of recommendations that begins with a claim about differentiating between a cold and COVID-19. Snopes addressed the “serious excellent advice” here, and addressed the list of tips that begin with a purported way to diagnose a cold versus COVID-19 here. This article deals only with the “self-check” claim attributed to Taiwan experts, which is flawed for several reasons. The “simple self-check” hinges on two central and unsupported assertions: First, that early COVID-19 infections include as a symptom a condition known as pulmonary fibrosis; and second, that the ability to hold your breath for 10 seconds is an accurate indicator of fibrosis. Neither is the case. Claim: If you can hold your breath without coughing, discomfort, stiffness, or tightness, your lungs do not suffer from fibrosis and therefore you have no COVID-19 infection. 

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The article includes price information for the drug’s likely competitor, Plavix–about $4 per day, a significant cost for a drug that is taken daily, perhaps for a lifetime. The article correctly indicates that the price of Plavix is likely to come down when it goes generic in four years. The article properly includes speculation that the pricing of prasugrel may be a key factor in its adoption, should it be approved. The reporter includes considerable data about several key clinical endpoints of both benefits and harms, in two cases using both absolute numbers of patients and percentage increase or descrease. The reporter gets extra points for including ""number needed to treat""–the number of people who would have  clinically significant outcomes for each 1,000 treated with the drug. The story is built around the question of the drugs’ risks vs. benefits. Data about harms are mentioned early and often, and described in detail. A direct comparision of the fatal bleeding rates for the two drugs would have been additionally useful. The New England Journal of Medicine article is based on results of a Phase III trial that appears to meet all the important criteria for significance: the study is prospective, the study group is large, the patients were randomized, the treatments double-blinded, the clinical endpoints signficant. While there is no placebo group, this was likely decided for ethical reasons, so all patients in the study would receive at least current best-practice treatment. The article assigns proper crediblity to the study, which to appear in NEJM has received rigorous peer review. The article does nothing to exaggerate the risk of death or the consequences of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular disease deaths. It allows the outcome figures to speak for themselves. The article quotes five experts in cardiology from different institutions, providing greater balance and context than just one or two experts would. In each case the relationship of the souce to the study and/or its funders is revealed. The considerable conflicts of interest of the investigators are made very clear. The article makes clear that prasugrel is being developed as an option to Plavix, and that Plavix with aspirin is currently best-practice treatment. The article makes clear that the drug prasugrel is not FDA approved and that its approval is uncertain. The article makes clear that this is a drug that is very similar to Plavix, and that it may be marginally more effective. No claims of novelty are made. The companies’ joint press release, an enthusiastic announcement about the drug’s benefits, bears little resemblance to this story." Claim: Blood drug trades benefit for risk


Output: 2