instruction:
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'.
question:
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.
answer:
2


question:
Paragraph: "It’s clear that Scott Walker’s views on abortion will get intensified scrutiny now that he has joined the crowded Republican presidential field. In 2014, during the final weeks of the campaign before he won re-election as governor, Walker was attacked in a TV ad by a national political action committee that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. And weeks before his White House run announcement on July 13, 2015, Walker was targeted twice: once in a TV ad by the nation’s oldest abortion rights advocacy group and once on a TV talk show by U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, used her June 3, 2015 interview on MSNBC to cast Walker as out of step with other Republicans on abortion. After host Chris Hayes suggested that Walker’s support for a law banning abortion after 20 weeks was mainstream among Republicans, Baldwin agreed. But she drew a contrast, stating: ""Yes, but if you look at the history of those who have been elected president, Scott Walker's views are clearly more extreme than any Republican president in recent times -- much more extreme than President George W. Bush with regard to the issues of having exemptions that deal with the health and the life of the mother, and the issues of exemptions for rape victims and incest."" On abortion, is Walker to the right of any recent Republican president? Previous claims Some statements about Walker and abortion have missed the mark, including the two we mentioned. The TV ad by EMILY’s List shortly before Walker defeated Democrat Mary Burke in 2014 claimed Walker was ""forcing some women to undergo a transvaginal probe to get an abortion."". A law Walker signed says women can choose either a transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound, though in certain cases a transvaginal probe may be medically necessary. The TV ad by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which aired in June 2015 in Iowa and New Hampshire, claimed Walker had said that ""forcing women facing abortion to get invasive ultrasounds was 'just a cool thing.’ "" The ""cool"" reference wasn’t to forcing some women to get vaginal ultrasounds, but rather to the ultrasound technology that produces images from the womb. Nevertheless, there is no question that for decades -- going back to before his time as governor and as a state lawmaker -- Walker has been staunchly anti-abortion. Baldwin’s office didn’t respond to our requests for information to back her claim, and Walker’s campaign didn’t weigh in, either. But we can compare Walker’s public positions on abortion to those of recent GOP presidents. NARAL, Planned Parenthood We asked NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America about how they rate politicians on abortion rights. The groups told us they don’t produce ratings on a continuum. They put politicians into broad categories -- not on a scale that would rank one as more extreme, to use Baldwin’s term, than another. NARAL gave Walker and 13 other Republican presidential contenders a grade of F, for Fail. The group points to Walker’s votes in the Legislature and measures he has signed into law as governor restricting access to abortion services. Planned Parenthood rates the Republican and Democratic 2016 contenders more broadly, on access to abortion, affordable birth control and family planning. Like most of the other GOP hopefuls, Walker was given a red X on each measure, rather than a green checkmark. Planned Parenthood notes that besides wanting to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, Walker tried to repeal a law requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and defunded Planned Parenthood, which is something Walker himself highlights in his campaign speeches. The website of the National Right to Life Committee, meanwhile, highlights the records of President Barack Obama and his four most recent predecessors, dating back to the late Ronald Reagan, but doesn’t do any ratings. So let’s look more closely at Walker and the three most recent GOP presidents, dating back to Reagan. Walker vs. Bushes, Reagan Walker’s basic position is clear. In 2010, a week before he was elected to his first term as governor, we rated a claim that Walker wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. He acknowledged that was his position. As Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin told us, since then, Walker has not contradicted that position in words or actions. In fact, Walker has underscored his support for banning abortion without exceptions commonly accepted by other abortion opponents. In March 2015, Walker released an ""open letter on life,"" which began by noting that he had ""earned a 100 percent rating with pro-life groups in Wisconsin."" And in June 2015, Walker pledged to sign legislation to ban abortions in Wisconsin after 20 weeks -- with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. That measure was passed by the Legislature the next month and is awaiting Walker’s signature. No recent Republican president has gone so far in opposing exceptions. As president, George H.W. Bush (1989-’93) and George W. Bush (2001-’09) both supported allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The elder Bush said in 1992 he said: ""My own position on abortion is well-known and remains unchanged. I oppose abortion in all cases except rape or incest or where the life of the mother is at stake."" The younger Bush declared in 2006: ''My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."" Meanwhile, Reagan (1981-’89), an idol of Walker’s, was closer to Walker’s position. He didn’t support an exception for rape or incest, but did support one to protect the life of the mother. In 1987, he promoted a bill with a provision that ""no funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."" Our rating Baldwin said Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive ""than any Republican president in recent times."" Walker supports outlawing abortion in all circumstances. The three most recent GOP presidents each supported exceptions, such as allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother." Claim: "Tammy Baldwin Says Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive ""than any Republican president in recent times."
answer:
2


question:
Paragraph: The story mentions that beta-blockers are available as generics but doesn’t specifically mention costs. As a class, beta blockers drugs are low cost ($10 to $200 a month according to some estimates). The article describes the median survival time afforded the women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios – with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. For example, women who had been taking any beta blocker at the time of their chemotherapy had a median survival of 47.8 months while women who were not being treated with beta blockers while on chemo had median survival time of 42 months. The article notes that the quoted source and the study authors cautioned that beta blockers carry some side effects and additional research is needed to determine if the drugs’ benefits outweigh their risks for cancer patients. It specifically mentions risks for people with asthma. Other specific harms from beta-blockers for the general population include depression and diarrhea. Beta-blockers may also cause complications for people with diabetes. The article provides a good overall description of the size of the study and how patients were followed. It describes the median survival time afforded the 1,425 women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios – with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. The use of language is appropriate in that it says these drugs were “linked to” and “associated with” benefits, but never claims that the drugs “prolonged survival” as stated in the MD Anderson news release. The story also briefly touched on the study limitations. Because the research was a retrospective look at 1,425 cases in a database of ovarian cancer cases, it wasn’t randomized. The article also notes that more research is needed to determine if the findings will translate into new treatments, and that “This is not something that people should rush out and start taking.” One area of concern is that the subheadline touts the dramatic benefits seen in a subgroup of patients taking nonselective beta-blockers — “A type of beta blocker is tied to more than four-year increase in survival for women with ovarian cancer, study finds” — but the story never specifically cautions readers about the small size of this group (only 75 people). Findings from such a small subgroup should be treated very carefully, and we’re not sure that they should have been highlighted for readers in the headline. We say this knowing full well that reporters often have no control over what gets put in the headline. We observed no evidence of fear-mongering language in the story. The story includes an independent source who wasn’t affiliated with the research. Christina Annunziata, a director with the Center for Cancer Research at the National Institutes of Health, said that while she found the study “interesting” and “thought-provoking,” she cautioned that “I don’t think it’s practice-changing quite yet.” Annunziata co-authored an editorial accompanying the report which were both published in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer journal. The story would have been even stronger had it outlined the funding sources for this study, which included government and foundation grants. However, since we didn’t find any significant conflicts in the list of funding sources, we didn’t think this omission unbalanced the coverage. The relevant research is based on evaluating the use of beta blockers in conjunction with conventional chemotherapy, not as an alternative to chemotherapy or other courses of treatment. As such, we’ll rate “Compare Alternatives” as Not Applicable. Beta blockers are called “common heart drugs” in the story and are thus generally understood to be widely available. Beta-blockers first came on the market more than 50 years ago and their use has become widespread as researchers found more applications for this class of drugs. Generic versions are available, making them some of the most affordable prescription drugs. A close call here. The story acknowledges previous research in this areas when it says, “Mouse and test-tube studies have shown that so-called nonselective beta blockers inhibit molecular pathways that promote tumor growth. Selective versions, designed to minimize side effects for heart patients, are less effective in hitting such targets. Dr. Sood and his colleagues wondered if the same effect would be found in people.” That’s good context, but the story could also have noted that a number of studies have indeed examined the impact of beta-blocker use on ovarian cancer patients, and did not find the same prolonged survival rates that are reported on in this story. The researchers think that’s because these earlier studies didn’t distinguish between the two types of beta-blockers. Because the article quotes an independent, unaffiliated cancer expert, we are confident the article doesn’t rely solely on a press release. Claim: Heart Drug Linked to Extra Years for Cancer Patients
answer:

2