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 Q]: Britain’s step, which follows France, amounts to a victory for electric cars that if copied globally could hit the wealth of oil producers, as well as transform car industry jobs and one of the icons of 20th Century capitalism: the automobile itself. The mayors of Paris, Madrid, Mexico City and Athens have said they plan to ban diesel vehicles from city centers by 2025, while the French government also aims to end the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040. The British government has been under pressure to take steps to reduce air pollution after losing legal cases brought by campaign groups. Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservatives had pledged to make “almost every car and van” zero-emission by 2050. “There should be no new diesel or petrol vehicles by 2040,” environment minister Michael Gove told BBC Radio. The ban would only apply to conventional rather than hybrid vehicles that have both an electric and combustion engine, Gove’s ministry said. There is a mountain to climb, however. Electric cars currently account for less than 5 percent of new car registrations in Britain, with drivers concerned about the cost and limited availability of charging points and manufacturers worried about making expensive investments before the demand is there. “We could undermine the UK’s successful automotive sector if we don’t allow enough time for the industry to adjust,” warned    Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Hawes said there were only 12,000 public charging points in Britain and new power infrastructure would be needed, as well as steps to ensure the power network could cope with large numbers of people seeking to charge vehicles at the same time. While many automakers may find it hard to countenance the end of the combustion engine, some have embraced a future where electric vehicles, or perhaps even driverless ones, prevail. This month, Volvo became the first major traditional automaker to set a date for phasing out vehicles powered solely by the internal combustion engine by saying all its car models launched after 2019 would be electric or hybrids. Renault-Nissan in 2009 announced plans to spend 4 billion euros on electric car development. But until Volkswagen (VW) admitted in 2015 to cheating on U.S. diesel emissions tests, most mainstream auto manufacturers had been slow to sink serious investment into battery cars. The backlash against diesel, without which carmakers would struggle to meet CO2 targets, has since refocused minds and produced a flurry of new commitments. VW itself unveiled ambitious plans last year to roll out 30 new battery-powered models that it expects to account for 2-3 million annual sales by 2025 - or as much as 25 percent of its vehicle production. “Even though modern combustion engines will be relevant for at least another 20 years, it is clear that the future will be ruled by electric drives,” VW chief executive Matthias Mueller said earlier this year. PSA Group boss Carlos Tavares, in the past a vocal defender of diesel technologies, said on Wednesday the French company was ready to embrace mass electrification, provided the required consumer demand and government support were there. “The rise of the electric vehicle is very much dependent on the subsidies and the support governments will be able to give to this technology,” Tavares told analysts during the company’s first-half results presentation. PSA is planning to roll out new pure-electric and plug-in hybrid models from 2019. Toyota, which pioneered hybrids but long resisted battery-only cars, changed tack last year and has since unveiled plans for a new range of pure-electric models. In Europe, so called ‘green cars’ benefit from subsidies, tax breaks and other perks, while combustion engines face mounting penalties including driving and parking restrictions. China, struggling with catastrophic pollution levels in major cities, is pushing plug-in vehicles, though in the United States there is much less appetite so far. Germany, the home of major carmakers such as VW, Daimler and BMW, should soon start phasing out petrol and diesel too, said Oliver Wittke, a transport expert in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. But there is likely to be resistance in Europe’s biggest car market. More than 600,000 jobs could be at risk in Germany from a potential ban on combustion engine cars by 2030, the Ifo economic institute said this month in a study commissioned by Germany’s VDA car industry lobby. Germany’s major carmakers have invested heavily in diesel technology, which offers more efficient fuel burn and lower carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars. In response to the British decision, a German government spokeswoman said on Wednesday Merkel had repeatedly warned against “demonizing” diesel vehicles. A spokesman for VW’s Audi brand, two thirds of whose European sales are diesel cars, said it could make diesel “fit for a future with even more stringent emission standards”. Yet Britain’s move will accelerate the decline of diesel cars, whose nitrogen oxide emissions have been blamed for causing respiratory diseases, in Europe’s second biggest market. The government will provide more than 250 million pounds to local authorities for schemes to restrict diesel vehicles’ access to polluted roads but said other options should be exhausted before charging users of polluting vehicles. Any restrictions or charges for polluting vehicles to use affected roads should be time-limited and lifted as soon as air pollution is within legal limits, it added. Gove said he favored road-by-road restrictions for diesel vehicles rather than outright bans from town centers or costly vehicle scrappage schemes, but did not rule them out entirely if they were local authorities’ preferred options. The government also said it would consult later this year on other possible measures including a targeted scrappage scheme. London mayor Sadiq Khan, of the opposition Labour Party, said the government’s commitment was half-hearted and steps needed to be taken before 2040 to tackle air pollution. “We need a fully-funded diesel scrappage fund now to get polluting vehicles off our streets immediately, as well as new powers so that cities across the UK can take the action needed to clean up our air,” Khan said in a statement. Turning away from oil will add to discussions about whether the world is reaching peak oil demand and how additional electric power can be generated. Some companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, expect demand to peak as early as by the end of the next decade. Demand for diesel cars fell 10 percent in the first half of the year in Britain while sales of petrol vehicles rose 5 percent, according to industry data. Sales of electric and hybrid models rose by nearly 30 percent, the fastest growing section of the market albeit from a low base.
[EX A]: Electric cars win? Britain to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2040.

[EX Q]: Chaiya, under pressure from health activists and doctors who campaigned to have him sacked, said declaring compulsory licenses on the drugs would save Thailand more than 3 billion baht ($100 million) over the next five years. “The findings have convinced me to go ahead with the CLs since the ministry’s policy is to give patients good access to quality drugs at cheap prices,” Chaiya said of the review by a panel of Health Ministry officials. The decision is a blow to major pharmaceutical companies which had lobbied hard to reverse the CL policy launched by the previous government appointed after a bloodless 2006 coup. The three drugs are Letrozole, a breast cancer medicine made by Novartis AG, the breast and lung cancer drug Docetaxel by Sanofi-Aventis, and Roche’s Erlotinib, used for treating lung, pancreatic and ovarian cancer. A license issued on a leukemia drug, Glivec, was cancelled last month after its maker, Novartis, agreed to supply it free to hundreds of Thai patients. Shortly after a democratically-elected government took power in February, Chaiya ordered the review of a policy he said was a “politically correct decision, but not legally correct”. At the time he said the government could afford the full cost of the drugs, if it meant avoiding trade retaliation by the United States, home to some of the world’s biggest drug firms. U.S. officials denied there were any plans to impose sanctions on Bangkok, although Thailand was placed on a watch list, meaning Washington believed its respect for patents had weakened. When Chaiya, a businessman with no medical training, fired the Health Ministry’s top official negotiating cheaper prices from foreign drug firms, outraged health activists and doctors launched a campaign to remove him. Chaiya said on Monday the ministry would buy cheaper versions of the cancer drugs from generic producers, such as Indian firms which already supply copy-cat HIV-AIDS medicines to Thailand. Under World Trade Organisation rules, countries can issue a compulsory license to make or buy generic versions of patented drugs deemed critical to public health as long as the medicines are meant for domestic use. Former Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla overrode Merck’s AIDS drug Efavirenz in late 2006, arguing that Thailand could not afford patented drugs for a national health plan that covers about 80 percent of the country’s 63 million people. A few months later he did the same on a Sanofi-Aventis heart medicine and an AIDS drug made by Abbott Laboratories, which refused to register several new medicines in Thailand. Mongkol, who targeted the four cancer drugs weeks before he left office, has defended the CL policy against major drug firms which accused him of stealing their intellectual property rights. ($1= 30 Baht)
[EX A]: Thailand will override cancer drug patents.

[EX Q]: The story does not discuss the costs or potential savings associated with the use of this drug. On the cost side, there are the direct costs of the drug itself as well as the diagnostic testing which must be conducted prior to administering the drug. In addition, hospitals incur significant costs to become certified as a primary stroke treatment centers, which is where candidates for tPA therapy are most likely to be taken by ambulance teams. On the savings side, successful treatment with tPA would potentially prevent significant expenditures on the care of disabled stroke patients. The story doesn’t do a good enough job explaining what they observed in the study or the benfits of tPA in general. In discussing the differences between weekday and weekend treatment, the story reports that there was a 20% difference in the likelihood of receiving tPA. In absolute terms, however, the difference between weekdays and weekends is very small (1.1% vs 0.9%). In addition, there is some discussion about why the study did not detect a reduction in deaths among patients treated on the weekend and who were more likely to receive tPA. The study could have noted that tPA has never been shown to reduce mortality in randomized clinical trials. The primary benefit of tPA—which is never explained in the story—is that it may increase the likelihood of a patient’s recovery from stroke without disability. The story was primarily about weekday vs. weekend use of tPA. While it could have mentioned other stroke treatments with proven benefits, such as aspirin, it would probably be unfair to dock points for not including this information. The story explains that the tPA is only used within 3 hours of the onset of stroke symptoms. It also hints at the fact that tPA is effective only for ischemic strokes, and that treatment is more likely to be available at certified stroke treatment centers. While it could have done more to make the limitations on tPA’s use explicit, the reader will probably come away with the sense that tPA is available only for certain patients where it can be used early. This is a satisfactory outcome.
[EX A]:
More Aggressive Treatment for Weekend Stroke