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]: Researchers set out to determine what killed coral near the $205 million dredge work at the port, which was done to make way for the larger ships sailing through an expanded Panama Canal to bring cargo to South Florida. Their study, published this month in the online journal PeerJ, compared work done in the channel to nearby coral. It puts at odds two governmental agencies that clashed over the dredge. Environmentalists had long worried that that $205 million dredging would damage the coral. The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/2gFJYNi ) reports the Corps contended a disease outbreak was responsible. State environmental regulators argued that mud stirred up by the dredge or leaked by a barge as it ferried sediment offshore smothered coral. The research team studied pictures taken before, during and after the dredge and said sediment spread across an area about 14 times bigger than the Corps permit allowed for. The study found that warm temperatures in the summer of 2014 triggered widespread bleaching and disease and the coral — stressed by the sediment — died in larger numbers than nearby coral. The project deepened the port’s channel by 6 feet, making it 52-feet deep. It completes a $1 billion makeover that includes a new tunnel at the port. “We now know the Corps dramatically underestimated both the severity and the geographic extent of the sediment impacts on the reef,” said Miami Waterkeeper Rachel Silverstein, whose group joined other conservationists in a legal fight to clean up the dredge. “The monitoring and the protocols that were supposed to protect this reef during the dredge clearly failed and this study is providing peer-reviewed, statistically valid evidence showing that impacts from the dredging resulted in widespread impacts.” Beginning in the summer of 2015, the fisheries service repeatedly warned the Corps that damage appeared to be more widespread and the agency was in danger of violating its permit. The Herald reports that the Corps also failed to provide updated surveys of the work, which prompted the fisheries service to issue a sharp letter accusing the agency of selectively choosing “certain results to downplay the permanent effects” of the dredge. Corps officials said the study used limited data and failed to distinguish between the types of sediment that buried coral during the dredge. “Drawing broad scale conclusions based on limited data is very misleading and not good science,” Corps spokeswoman Susan Jackson told the Herald via email. She said the agency is “committed to understanding potential impacts” and has expanded monitoring efforts, which include cameras on the ocean floor to record conditions. The researchers conclude that the study highlights the need to be more careful when dredging near sensitive reefs and should serve as a warning for the upcoming $374 million expansion at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. ___ Information from: The Miami Herald, http://www.herald.com
[EX A]: Study: Mud stirred up during PortMiami dredge killed coral.

[EX Q]: "In a Dec. 15, 2015, interview with actress and writer Lena Dunham in Lenny Letter, Dunham’s feminist email newsletter, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards discussed testifying to Congress, running Planned Parenthood in the wake of the shooting in Colorado Springs and her experiences fighting for reproductive rights. Their conversation came as Republicans in Congress continued to seek an end to any federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the same year videos released by an anti-abortion group purported to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the use of fetal tissue in medical research. Federal funding to Planned Parenthood does not go toward abortions and is instead used to fund the organization’s other services, such as sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, mammograms and contraceptive services. In the interview, Dunham asked Richards about changes in the politics of abortion rights over Richards’ nine years as president of Planned Parenthood. Richards, eldest daughter to Ann Richards, the late former Texas governor, replied by mentioning the partisan realignment of legislatures in 2010, which mostly benefited Republicans, and the Republican Party’s national shift to the right. ""But if you look at the people in this country,"" Richards continued, ""they are supportive of safe and legal abortion. They support Planned Parenthood. I was just looking at the recent numbers. More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress."" Those numbers, Richards said, show that ""just because the politics are going one way, it’s not because that’s where the people are."" Where the people are is a pretty broad assessment. We focused on whether Richards was right about the relative popularity of Planned Parenthood and unpopularity of Congress. Congressional approval Congress hasn’t been widely admired very often. As we noted in a December 2014 story, the Gallup polling organization started inquiring into attitudes toward Congress in 1974. Its results show Congress never proving very popular, except after the 9/11 attacks, when there was a spike to 84 percent of respondents approving of the job Congress was doing. The most recent Gallup poll available at the time of Richards’ interview placed public approval of Congress at 11 percent. (After that, according to Gallup, support edged up to 13 percent.) The poll, conducted from Nov. 4 to Nov. 8, 2015, asked respondents, ""Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"" A whopping 86 percent disapproved, and 3 percent had no opinion. Eleven percent approval was a low point for Congress in 2015. Twenty percent approved of Congress in February 2015, and 19 percent approved in May 2015. Approval of Congress declined starting in May 2015, reaching 14 percent in August 2015 and 13 percent in October 2015, before hitting 11 percent the next month. A poll released Dec. 3, 1015, by Rasmussen Reports placed public support for Congress even lower: 9 percent of likely voters said Congress was doing a good or excellent job according to Rasmussen’s methodology, which in 2015 often returned lower favorability numbers than Gallup’s polls. Support for Planned Parenthood funding In reviewing the other end of Richards’ claim, we recognized two ways to gauge ""support"" for Planned Parenthood. Polls in 2015 inquired into U.S. attitudes about ending federal aid to the group and about general feelings about the group which, we’ve noted, provides family planning and other women’s health services, including abortions. Planned Parenthood, asked for the factual backup to Richards’ statement, pointed us to several surveys showing support for the group itself and support for its funding as well as opposition to shutting down the government rather than continuing its aid. An Oct. 14, 2015, PolitiFact Wisconsin fact-check found True this September 2015 claim by Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore: ""60 percent of all Americans do not want to see Planned Parenthood defunded."" Three September 2015 surveys--similarly cited by Planned Parenthood when we made our recent inquiry--seemed to back Moore’s claim: • A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of adults asked: ""Would you favor or oppose totally eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventative health services?"" Sixty-one percent of respondents opposed eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood. • A USA Today/Suffolk University poll of likely voters asked: ""Do you think all federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be cut off: yes or no?"" Sixty-five percent said no. A similar poll conducted in December 2015 saw that number down slightly at 58 percent. • A Pew Research Center poll tied Planned Parenthood funding to a possible government shutdown in its question but got a similar result: 60 percent of adults said any federal budget agreement to avert a government shutdown would have to maintain funding for Planned Parenthood. Another survey, however, did find support for eliminating Planned Parenthood’s funding. Released Dec. 2, 2015, the poll from the Robert Morris University Polling Institute found that 53.3 percent of respondents supported defunding Planned Parenthood, and 31.5 percent opposed it. The RMU polling institute speculated in its news release that the starkly different response stemmed from the wording used in the polling question. The RMU poll asked respondents: ""Congressional Republicans favor shifting Planned Parenthood federal funds to community clinics that perform the same services, but do not perform abortions. Would you say you support or oppose this plan?"" Other polls generally asked a version of the question, ""Do you think all federal funding to Planned Parenthood should be cut off?"" without mentioning clinics, services, or abortions. The RMU poll stood alone in finding support for defunding Planned Parenthood. Support for Planned Parenthood Survey questions asking directly about support for Planned Parenthood in itself — rather than its government backing — had positive responses, at lower numbers than the 60 percent mark. These polls all asked a version of the simple question, ""Is your opinion of Planned Parenthood favorable or unfavorable?"" An Oct. 6, 2015, poll by Rasmussen Reports, which Planned Parenthood also shared with us, found that 53 percent of likely voters had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, with a margin of error of 3 percent. A Bloomberg National Poll in November 2015 got 50 percent favorability for the organization, with the same margin of error. A Sept. 28, 2015, poll from Quinnipiac University delivered lower numbers: it found that 44 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, compared with 39 percent unfavorable, with a 2.5 percent margin of error. The lowest favorability ratings came from a September 2015 CBS News/New York Times poll, which found 40 percent in favor and 27 percent not in favor. Thirty-one percent in that poll said they did not know enough to answer the question. By email, Planned Parenthood media relations assistant Claire Barnes pointed to an Aug. 5, 2015, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that put Planned Parenthood’s favorability ratings in context. The poll found Planned Parenthood’s 45 percent favorability rating was higher than favorability ratings for the NRA, the Supreme Court, Bernie Sanders, President Barack Obama and several Republican presidential candidates included in the survey. Our ruling Richards said that more than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress. Richards had a bead on Congress, which was wallowing in 11-percent approval territory in November 2015. In addition, most polls suggested more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Still, there’s clarification missing. While more people look favorably on Planned Parenthood than not, polls indicated, that was the opinion of 40 percent to 53 percent of Americans--not more than 60 percent. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
[EX A]: More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood and only 11 percent approve of Congress.

[EX Q]: “Sales are going really well, and getting better every month,” said Jen Osmun, who started the business with her husband, a former plumber, after he was injured in an accident. Most customers at Grassy Plain Vape & Smoke buy electronic cigarettes to help them quit smoking tobacco, but a growing number are referred by medical marijuana commissaries in the neighborhood – the nearest is about five miles away. The Osmuns’ experience is becoming more common as the number of U.S. vape shops soars and shop owners seek to capitalize not only on the vaping trend, but on the more widespread, and legal, use of medical marijuana. Since 2008, the number of U.S. vape shops has grown to about 8,500, and the sale of electronic cigarettes and supplies climbed to $3.5 billion, according to Wells Fargo Securities analyst Bonnie Herzog. She expects U.S. use of e-cigarettes and vaporizers to overtake combustible cigarettes in 10 years. Marijuana represents an additional lucrative market. IBISWorld, a market research firm, projects sales of cannabis for medical use to increase to $13.4 billion in 2020 from $3.6 billion in 2015, largely due to demand from an aging population with conditions such as arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease and glaucoma. GreenWave Advisors, an industry research firm, estimates marijuana sales could reach $35 billion in 2020 if all 50 states legalize marijuana for both medical and recreational uses. Medical marijuana use is permitted in 23 states and the District of Columbia for a number of conditions, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, severe pain and HIV/AIDS, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Another 15 states allow patients – often with severe seizure disorders - to use a few strains of cannabis for treatment. Recreational use is legal in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska. At many vape shops, the new customers are typically older nonsmokers suffering from serious illness, according to vape shop owners, customers and industry experts. Patients and medical marijuana groups say they prefer the vaping device for marijuana rather than smoking because they believe there are lower risks. Some states, including New York and Minnesota, prohibit patients from smoking the cannabis. In a vape device, the cannabis leaves or concentrate are heated to a temperature that’s lower than required for combustion. Vaping devices, which can be as small as a ball point pen, also provide medical marijuana users with more privacy, since the vapor released by the heating device is nearly odorless. “Vaporized cannabis is a really significant trend in both medical and adult use,” said Christie Lunsford, a Colorado-based consultant who focuses on issues involving cannabis. “It’s consistent, it’s almost instantaneous, and it’s appropriate for a wide variety of consumers.”  Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Palm Beach Vapors has opened 14 shops and is in the process of starting another eight, said Chip Paul, CEO and co-owner. He told Reuters that 90 percent of the franchisees eventually hope to capitalize on marijuana-related sales. Individual stores pay a $25,000 franchise fee and $50,000 for initial stocking, while Palm Beach Vapors helps train workers and set up the store. Franchisees are on average grossing about $20,000 a month, Paul said. “We think the cannabis market will mimic and mirror the tobacco market,” he said. “We think they will see this (vapor) as a safer alternative.”      Patients need a doctor’s approval to get the marijuana, which is typically available from state approved dispensaries, private growers, and – in some instances - their own plants if they can’t afford the cannabis, which is not covered by most insurance plans. At the same time, vaping devices have gone mainstream as the industry pushes them as an alternative to tobacco. Marijuana dispensaries in some states also sell the electronic devices. But vape shops, with their larger selection of devices, have seen an uptick in sales especially from consumers who don’t want to shop at tobacco stores or head shops, which cater more to recreational use. “We try to steer our patients to someone who will explain to them the different models and find them the one that is right for them,” said JoAnne Leppanen, executive director of the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition. “You don’t necessarily want to go into a place geared for people who want a tie-dyed T-shirt.”  The process can be daunting for someone who is seriously ill and struggles to even hold a device because of tremors, arthritis or other medical conditions. Leppanen said medical marijuana patients “do not want to be associated with recreational use.” They also want their privacy. Some patients don’t even “want their cars to be seen in a dispensary parking lot,” she said. Most investments in the future of legal marijuana have focused on growing, branding and technology firms, especially those already producing medical marijuana. A subsidiary of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co, for example, purchased General Hydroponics Inc, which is popular with indoor marijuana growers. A small number of private equity and hedge funds have invested in companies that produce and market the cannabis. Billionaire Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, for example, has invested in Privateer Holdings, which has raised $82 million. Privateer’s portfolio includes companies like Tilray – a medical cannabis company in Canada – which has applied for a license in New York. Privateer has also invested in Leafly, a tech company that helps consumers find cannabis information, doctors and stores. By contrast, vape shops are still primarily mom-and-pop operations. VaporFi, one of the largest franchises, has grown in two years to 52 stores. Kevin Cintorino opened Elevated to sell vaping equipment and snacks in Providence, Rhode Island, where medical marijuana users can gather to vape. He came up with the business plan during a college class. “Why not open a place where we could get the entire patient community together?” he said. John Avey and his father, Dillard, opened in May a Palm Beach Vapors franchise in rural Council Bluffs, Iowa, to supplement income from their seasonal cement business. Sales have been so good that they’re already planning more stores. “It’s like the cherry on top,” said John Avey, 25, about the equipment sales for cannabis.
[EX A]:
In rise of U.S. vape shops, owners eye new marijuana market.