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.

[Q]: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
[A]: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues


[Q]: The Utah Senate and House of Representatives voted unanimously Monday evening during a special session to send the proposal to Republican Gov. Gary Herbert’s desk. The measure would replace plans for an unusual state-run dispensary system with 14 privately run pharmacies and adopt protections for patients who are concerned they could be prosecuted for drug crimes, among other changes. Utah backtracked from the state-run dispensary after county attorneys expressed concern that such a system would put public employees at risk of being prosecuted under federal drug laws. Republican Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers, who drafted the law, said his team is “doing everything we can” to improve patient access and have product ready by next March. Some lawmakers said they still have heartburn over certain aspects of the bill, sharing reservations about product distribution and a looming fear of federal prosecution. Democratic Sen. Derek Kitchen said he’s concerned patients in rural parts of the state may have to pay more to access marijuana. Before the House vote, Republican Rep. Keven Stratton suggested Utah seek a federal waiver to protect the state program from prosecution under federal drug laws. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, though a congressional amendment blocks the Justice Department from interfering with states’ medical marijuana programs. The measure dictated that the courts may not treat a medical marijuana patient differently than someone who uses any other prescribed, controlled substance. Another change prohibited the state from issuing cultivation and pharmacy licenses to legislators. “A lot of money flows through this industry, some back to legislators,” Vickers said. “We don’t want legislators to have undue influence in an industry they want to have ownership in.” Debates in the chamber reflected ongoing tensions over amendments regarding distribution and prosecution of drug crimes. During a tense public hearing last week, members of the conservative group Utah Eagle Forum lamented the loss of the state-run dispensary system, while some medical marijuana advocates raised concern that there wouldn’t be enough private dispensaries to meet growing patient demand. An earlier version of the law imagined 12 privately run dispensaries instead of the state-run system. In the same meeting, a proposal outlining patient protections caused an emotional back-and-forth between conservative attorneys who argued parents couldn’t take care of children while using marijuana and patients who said the drug makes them better caretakers and helps them manage their pain. Utah residents voted to legalize medical marijuana via ballot measure in November. The revised law became effective in December after a compromise that secured the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some marijuana advocates. However, the deal drew backlash from other advocates as it banned many marijuana edibles, placed additional restrictions on growing cannabis and made fewer medical conditions eligible for treatment with pot. Other changes addressed issues with land ordinances for cultivation facilities and marijuana research at in-state universities. Marijuana advocates said they are optimistic about the changes adopted. “There’s a light at the end of the tunnel, we see legislators working together, and they’re willing to work out a plan for patients,” Desiree Hennessy, director of the Utah Patients Coalition, said. Republican Rep. Brad Daw acknowledged the measure as a good first step but expects additional changes to the program in January. “I have close friends who, for them, cannabis is the only option, it relieves the kind of pain they have ... we have every right and responsibility to work toward a law that allows medical cannabis to patients who need it,” he said. “Is this bill perfect? Of course not. Is this done? No, it’s not.”
[A]: Utah lawmakers approve changes to medical cannabis law.


[Q]: A Pennsylvania state lawmaker came under criticism for attempting to compare the transgender community to people refusing to follow guidelines against spreading the COVID-19 pandemic.A statement from State Rep. Russ Diamond allegedly standing up for the “unmasked population” prompted Gov. Tom Wolf to urge Diamond’s fellow Republicans to censure Diamond on July 30 2020.“There are no words that adequately describe my disdain for the antics Rep. Diamond displayed in his latest missive,” Wolf said in his own statement.The uproar around Diamond began a day earlier, when he posted a release that intentionally mimicked remarks from state health director Dr. Rachel Levine addressing transphobic harassment directed at her. She said, in part:The LGBTQ community has made so much progress under Governor Wolf and his leadership during his time in office, but I want to emphasize that while these individuals may think that they are only expressing their displeasure with me, they are, in fact, hurting the thousands of LGBTQ Pennsylvanians who suffered directly from these current demonstrations of harassment.Your actions perpetuate the spirit of intolerance and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, and specifically transgender individuals.It is only one month ago that the Supreme Court prohibited discrimination in the workplace due to sexual orientation and gender identity, but LGBTQ individuals can still be denied housing, and public accommodations in most places in Pennsylvania, that do not have local nondiscrimination ordinances.In addition, the most vulnerable among us continue to suffer, including LGBTQ individuals of color, LGBTQ youth, LGBTQ seniors, and LGBTQ immigrants. Transgender women of color continue to not only be harassed, but are more likely to suffer, violence, and even murder.Diamond’s statement substituted the “maskless community” — in other words, those who refuse to wear face coverings in public settings amid a global pandemic — for LGBTQ Pennsylvanians:I want to emphasize that while these individuals may think that they are only expressing their displeasure with me, they are, in fact, hurting the thousands of unmasked Pennsylvanians who suffered directly from these current demonstrations of harassment.Your actions perpetuate the spirit of intolerance and discrimination against unmasked individuals, and specifically individuals like myself who are outspoken about it.It is only one month ago that the Department of Health promulgated a mask policy which specifically included exemptions for medical conditions which do not need to be documented. But unmasked individuals still are being access to public accommodations in places in Pennsylvania that are not honoring those exemptions.In addition, the most vulnerable among us continue to suffer, including unmasked individuals of color, unmasked youth and seniors, and unmasked immigrants.Statement on Hateful Comments Toward Unmasked Community pic.twitter.com/uqrqZ7Tt6X— Russ Diamond (@russdiamond) July 29, 2020The state policy on the use of masks in public spaces does provide exemptions for respiratory issues as well as for mental health issues and people who need to read lips in order to communicate. But those opposing similar policies have taken to spreading disinformation claiming that masks themselves cause illness, or creating fake cards or “passes” they claim cover exemptions set forth by the American Disability Act and other legislation.In rebuking Diamond, Wolf called his statement “Abhorrent, disrespectful, [and] dangerous” as well as an attack on Levine and LGBTQ communities.“Virtually no thinking person disputes mask-wearing as an effective means to stop the spread of COVID,” the governor said in his statement. “Proud non-mask-wearers such as Rep. Diamond are not displaying their freedom, but rather their ignorance and lack of respect for themselves, their families, neighbors and communities when they don’t wear a mask, and are likely leading to more spread of this dangerous virus.”Diamond responded online by calling on Wolf to fire Levine and then resign — while also falsely calling her gender identity a “lifestyle.”“Secretary of Health Rachel Levine made a strong statement in defense of her lifestyle and condemned hatred and intolerance. I, of course, condemn all hatred and intolerance,” Diamond’s statement read. “However, I found it ironic that Levine fails to see that her own policies, and those of the governor, are creating similar hatred and intolerance across Pennsylvania.”Diamond has denied that he was intentionally mocking Levine, but he has not directly addressed whether he was comparing transgender communities with people willingly opposing face mask guidelines.“The release accurately speaks to those who have attacked, maligned, and threatened me, as well as others, since I first questioned the ridiculous mask policy months ago,” he told the news outlet Spotlight PA. “Her policy allows for exceptions that apply to a lot of people, yet all we hear is ‘you MUST wear a mask. '”For her part, Levine called Diamond’s statement “another example of harassment against LGBTQ individuals.”“Never mind using my words as a comment on me,” she said during a press briefing in Lancaster. “Really, what I worry about is the other LGBTQ individuals in the commonwealth who regularly face intolerance and harassment and sometimes overt violence.”Comments
[A]:
Pennsylvania state Rep. Russ Diamond (R) released a statement opposing the use of face mask that mimicked remarks by Dr. Rachel Levine regarding transphobic harassment.