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]: Health workers were desperate to persuade him to get vaccinated for Ebola after a friend fell ill with the lethal and highly contagious disease. But within days, Nduhi was dead. His widow and their four young children were given his positive Ebola test result and a chilling warning from a team of health workers: “If you don’t accept vaccination, you can prepare to die.” Deep distrust — along with political instability and deadly violence — has severely undermined efforts by public health authorities in Congo to curb the outbreak by tracing and vaccinating those who may have come into contact with infected people. Health experts agree the experimental Ebola vaccine has saved multitudes in Congo. But after nearly a year and some 171,000 doses given, the epidemic shows few signs of waning. The virus has killed more than 1,700 people and has now arrived in the region’s largest city, Goma. The World Health Organization last week declared the outbreak a global health emergency. During the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, which left more than 11,300 people dead, health workers could only dream of a vaccine with a 97.5 percent effectiveness rate that could improve the odds of survival even in those already infected. “We have it now and it’s not the miracle we wanted it to be,” said Dr. Joanne Liu, president of Doctors Without Borders. “The fact that we’ve used so much vaccine, and the epidemic hasn’t stopped, that shows us that contact tracing is not great.” WHO says as many as 90 percent of those eligible for vaccination have accepted it, but that figure only includes those who gave contact tracers enough information to be included on a list. The success rate excludes those who distrusted health workers and fled, or those who couldn’t be found in the first place. Health workers have been using what is known as a ring vaccination strategy: The vaccine is first given to those who were in close contact with a sick person. Then a second so-called ring is created by giving the vaccine to those who were in contact with those people. Because of the difficulties in making that strategy work, some people didn’t get vaccinated until they had already been infected with the virus, and they developed Ebola anyway. That increased doubts about the vaccine in communities where the public health campaigns led by outsiders already were viewed with suspicion and hostility. “The rumors were if you got vaccinated you would die,” said Liboke Kakule Muhingi, a 43-year-old farmer in Mangina, where the epidemic began last August. His mother was among the first to die. Then, one by one, six of his sisters who had cared for their ailing mother were killed by Ebola. Kakule accepted the vaccine and made sure his wife and eight children got it, too. “If I hadn’t, we’d all be dead,” he said. In some cases, health teams have been unable to reach certain areas because of violence or rebel activity. Earlier this month, the head of the Congolese health ministry’s response efforts in Beni was at one point unable to return from a field visit while the military battled ADF rebels, who are linked to the Islamic State. More often, though, contact lists have fallen apart simply because people have deliberately evaded health workers or did not understand they shouldn’t travel after being exposed. A pastor who became the first confirmed case in Goma had apparently put down fake names at health checkpoints to avoid detection. He had been sickened in the town of Butembo and then took a bus while ill. WHO and the Congolese health ministry have now switched tactics and are offering the vaccine to anyone who wants it. With Ebola’s arrival in Goma, a city of more than 2 million people, some wonder whether there will be enough of the vaccine if the outbreak continues. The vaccine’s manufacturer, Merck, said it has 245,000 1-millileter doses on hand and that could rise to 900,000 over the next 18 months. The dose in Congo also has been reduced to 0.5 mL, effectively doubling the supply. “Whether or not the available doses are sufficient to fulfill the demands depends on the evolution of the outbreak, the access to the communities and the successful expansion of the production of additional doses by Merck in early 2020,” WHO said. There is a second experimental vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, but health officials in Congo have said it will not be used because it needs further testing and would cause too much confusion. It requires two doses given one month apart. It’s unclear how long the Merck vaccine will protect people. Scientists know from early studies that it lasts for at least a year, but the epidemic is approaching that limit. The only study to report longer vaccine durability tracked only a small number of healthy volunteers in Geneva for two years. The new strategy of giving shots to anyone who wants them involves setting up “pop-up” sites in the neighborhoods most affected. Last week a vaccination team headed to the neighborhood in Beni where Nduhi’s wife had stayed after he died. Outside the mud-brick home where his children still lived, a pickup truck full of plastic tables and chairs pulled over. Soon a tent was set up, and vaccination teams donned eye protection and yellow surgical gowns. Neighborhood children climbed the trees to watch. Baraka Kathembo Makasi, a 22-year-old motorbike taxi driver, brought his wife and two children with him. “At first I refused,” he said, “but I started seeing people die and decided to go.” ___ Associated Press writers Al-Hadji Kudra Maliro in Beni, Congo; Lauran Neergaard in Washington; Maria Cheng in London; and Jamey Keaten in Geneva contributed to this report.
[EX A]: Ebola vaccine hampered by deep distrust in eastern Congo.

[EX Q]: Environmental groups strongly oppose the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves extracting gas from rocks by breaking them up with water and chemicals at high pressure. But the government, keen to cut Britain’s reliance on imports as North Sea gas supplies dry up, has tightened regulations and has given Cuadrilla permission to frack two wells at its Preston New Road site in Lancashire. Cuadrilla, 47.4 percent owned by Australia’s AJ Lucas and 45.2 percent owned by a fund managed by Riverstone, said it would spend at least three months fracking two horizontal wells to test flow rates to determine whether full-scale gas extraction would be viable. The British Geological Survey estimates shale gas resources in northern England alone could amount to 1,300 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas, 10 percent of which could meet the Britain’s demand for almost 40 years. “Shale gas has the potential to be a new domestic energy source, enhancing our energy security and delivering economic benefits, including the creation of well-paid, quality jobs,” the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said. “We have been clear that any shale developments must be safe and environmentally sound,” the department added in a statement. Attempts to extract the gas have come under fire from local communities and campaigners concerned about the potential effect on the environment and ground water. They say extracting more fossil fuel is at odds with Britain’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “It is morally bankrupt to be heralding the start of a whole new fossil fuel industry,” Craig Bennett, chief executive of environmental group Friends of the Earth said in a statement. “You can deal with climate change or you can have fracking – you can’t do both,” he said. The government asked its climate advisers on Monday to examine whether Britain should toughen its climate targets and set a date to move to a net zero emissions goal. Britain has an existing target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent compared with 1990 levels by 2050.
[EX A]: Britain's Cuadrilla starts fracking for gas after seven-year pause.

[EX Q]: The lack of any cost information is one flaw to this article. Reminding the readers of the costs of PSA screening programs–in terms of the huge volume of medical services that it can catalyze (including the costs of the test itself, the drugs, surgeries, urology consultations, hospital and operating time, as well as the lost income for men who are recovering from treatment)–is a necessary part of the story. There is good depth here discussing the benefits. Early in the story it indicates that “for a man in the U.S., the risk of dying of prostate cancer is about 2.5 percent. A mortality reduction of 30 percent would lower the death rate to 1.75 percent.”  Later this is described in relative terms, saying that more frequent PSA screening “moved some prostate cancers from too-advanced-to-treat to treatable, reducing prostate cancer mortality by 27 percent to 32 percent over 11 years.” Drawing from information produced by the USPSTF, the article concluded that the gains in prostate cancer detection “come at some cost to health, though: For every life saved, five men will be told they have cancer when in fact their abnormal cells would never grow, spread, or harm them. In other estimates, such “overdiagnoses” outnumber lives saved by 50-to-1.” The one harm that is often overlooked in widely-promoted screening programs is the psychological harm that perfectly healthy people may experience when they have had a “cancer scare,” and that even though their life is unlikely to be saved, the worry, anxiety, depression and angst do exact a substantial life-altering toll that goes unmeasured. This story superbly describes the quality of the evidence, emphasizing that this is not new research but it is new (and controversial) mathematical modeling and that there are a number of biases that can affect the interpretation of the results. This was a much stronger discussion of the evidence compared to the LA Times story we also reviewed. There are no signs of the common type of disease mongering we sometimes encounter in commentary about PSA testing, where some will take data from one age cohort as proof to suggest that other age cohorts (ie: younger men) would also benefit from PSA testing. A wide range of outside voices give this article depth and heft. The inclusion of voices of researchers who chose to remain anonymous reminds us of the very controversial and potentially career-altering aspects of this research. However, as with the Los Angeles Times story, this story didn’t note the financial disclosures of the study authors, including the senior author, Ruth Etzioni, who disclosed she owns equity in a company developing medical imaging technology that it says could be applied in prostate cancer patients. Dr. Etzioni stated that she does not consider the equity ownership to be a conflict of interest, but considering that an increase in PSA screening would boost demand for more precise and less invasive follow-up testing, it appears that her company would benefit. The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. While that source does not raise any red flags, and the study stated that the funder had no role in the study, news stories are more informative when they note study funding. This research is specifically about comparing the value of screening for prostate cancer vs not screening. New biomarkers and variations on the PSA test itself, along with other screening modalities, such as digital rectal exam, are not mentioned and were not addressed in the studies that are described. It’s clear from the article that PSA testing is ubiquitous in America. Mentioning that it is covered by most insurers, and for those on Medicaid/Medicare, still would have been helpful, however. The report of this study establishes, correctly, how it might expand our view of the value of PSA testing and reminds us that what is “novel” here is the interpretation of previous research. This article clearly goes beyond what would have likely been the contents of a news release, particularly in deeply re-examining the findings from multiple perspectives.
[EX A]:
A new study claims prostate cancer screenings significantly reduce deaths. Not everyone agrees