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.

Input: Consider Input: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provided data showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin D supplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit from taking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when it suggests that adolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it never specifies how much they are getting now, how much more they’d need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence that high levels of vitamin D may have adverse effects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increase in the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that  claims of benefit from extra vitamin D are based on observational studies that most scientists agree “cannot determine cause and effect.” We also like that the story solicited opinions from a variety of experts with no obvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasized the need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: “I think this report will make people more cautious” and “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.” Although we agree with the story’s skeptical overall message, we think it may have slammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibility of benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currently available evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact, research is now underway to determine whether the benefits found in observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn’t go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts, some of whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchers might be explained by their significant career and financial interests in promoting vitamin D. Not applicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there’s not really any alternative to getting adequate amounts of these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we’ll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release.

Output: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements


Input: Consider Input: The state Department of Public Health says they notified the school this week of plans to investigate and ensure that students and employees will be screened quickly to see if they were infected. On Wednesday, the state and university began identifying students enrolled in classes, as well as faculty and staff, who might have been in close contact with the student. Symptoms can include chest pain, chronic coughing, coughing with blood, chills, fever and loss of appetite. Testing is scheduled to begin on Thursday.

Output: Alabama to test Auburn students, employees for TB.


Input: Consider Input: "Defiant Sheboygan Mayor Bob Ryan-- whose drinking problems have spurred scorn from citizens, humiliation on YouTube and ridicule from Jay Leno -- says he would become a singular figure in the history of Wisconsin government if his Common Council succeeds in removing him from office. Wisconsin witnessed a historic set of nine recall elections in the summer of 2011. Voters removed two Republican state senators from office. But Ryan, whose city calls itself the bratwurst capital of the world, claims his removal would be unique -- partly because it would not involve a recall. On Aug. 15, 2011, the Sheboygan Common Council launched a process that could eventually take Ryan, who has resisted calls to resign, out of office. If the move plays out, Ryan essentially would be put on trial with the council acting as judge and jury, according to a Sheboygan Press article and Sheboygan City Attorney Steve McLean. Ryan made his claim to aldermen during the Aug. 15 council meeting, according to WBAY-TV in Green Bay. ""This whole thing stinks. If you want to take me out of office, by all means start your recall,"" he said. ""If you want to go down this path, it's not a threat, it's a fact, it's never been done. There's never been a public official removed from office in this state for anything but malfeasance in office. I'm here to do a job. I will continue to do that job. You should know by now, I never quit. Ever."" For us, the key claim is this sentence:  ""There's never been a public official removed from office in this state for anything but malfeasance in office."" Never is a long time. Ryan didn’t return our call and emails over two days asking him to clarify his claim and to provide evidence for it. ""Public official,"" for example, could mean an elected official or an appointed one, such as a school superintendent. But our sense is Ryan was referring to elected officials like himself being removed by a governmental body, and not the voters. Ryan has argued that his drinking -- he has admitted to being an alcoholic -- has not affected his duties as mayor. The saga in Sheboygan, a Lake Michigan community of about 50,000 people 60 miles north of Milwaukee, began in September 2009, six months after Ryan, 48, was elected mayor. He called a news conference to apologize for making a sexually explicit remark about his wife’s sister. Ryan’s remark was captured on video, posted on YouTube, became fodder for Jay Leno and led the Common Council to censure him. The drama intensified in July 2011, when news surfaced that Ryan was issued a warning by police after a weekend of drinking at taverns in Elkhart Lake, becoming rude and obnoxious and passing out at least once. The Common Council voted to begin the removal process after Ryan refused its call to resign. To see whether Ryan’s claim is correct, we contacted a number of experts. They include state government entities -- the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Historical Society, the Department of Public Instruction and the Judicial Commission; statewide associations -- the League of Municipalities, the Counties Association and the Association of School Boards; political scientists -- Dennis Dresang of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Joe Heim of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse; and Milwaukee historian John Gurda. Here’s what we found:  Fatal shooting: In 1842, six years before Wisconsin became a state, James Vineyard, a member of the Territorial Legislature’s version of the state Senate, shot and killed fellow member Charles C.P. Arndt during an argument after a legislative session adjourned. Vineyard was expelled from the legislature after it refused to accept his resignation, although he was acquitted of manslaughter at trial, according to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Given that the shooting occurred on the legislative floor, it could be fairly argued that the removal was related to misconduct in office. So, that one does not directly undercut Ryan’s claim. Felony crimes: At least four state lawmakers have been removed from office after being convicted of a felony. But under state law, the expulsions were automatic -- no action needed to be taken by the Legislature -- so that makes their removals different than Ryan’s would be. Crimes not directly related to official duties also have led to removals that were not automatic. For example, the New Holstein School Board fired Christopher J. Nelson, the district’s superintendent, after he was charged in February 2011 with trying to set up a sexual encounter with a person he thought was a 15-year-old boy. That could undercut Ryan’s claim, but Nelson was an appointed official, not elected. Non-criminal removal: In 1992, the state Supreme Court removed Racine County Circuit Court Judge Jon Skow from the bench after he admitted he was permanently disabled from stress and depression. The high court determined that Skow, who suffered from alcoholism, could not carry out his duties. He previously had been suspended following a number of incidents, including leaving the bench during a trial. That case does undercut Ryan’s claim, since the judge was not removed for malfeasance in office. As rare as removals from office appear to be, at least two other Wisconsin mayors have been targeted for removal since 2008. The Common Council in Montello, 60 miles north of Madison, removed Mayor Frank Breitenbach in August 2008 for reasons related to misconduct in office, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. He faced 15 allegations by city employees and residents, including using profanity with employees and threatening to fire Montello's police chief without legal authority. In Marinette, a Lake Michigan community 120 miles north of Sheboygan, a Common Council committee recommended hiring a special prosecutor in an effort to remove Mayor Robert Harbick from office. Harbick had pleaded no contest to first-offense drunken-driving, which is a traffic violation in Wisconsin. But the removal process failed to proceed when the proposal to hire the attorney failed in a 4-4 vote before the full council in August 2011. Let’s review what we’ve found. The embattled Sheboygan mayor said no public official in Wisconsin has ever been removed from office ""for anything but malfeasance in office."" Ryan’s reference was not to recall elections or automatic removal, but removal by a governmental body such as a city council. Our sense is it’s likely the mayor was speaking of elected officials, and we could find only one instance, involving a judge, in which a removal was not for misconduct in office. We also found a school superintendent fired by a school board following the filing of criminal charges, but he did not hold an elected position. This is a statement we could revisit if more information surfaces; after all we’re talking about more than 150 years of history and countless governmental entities in Wisconsin. For now, we feel Ryan’s statement needs a little clarification, but is essentially accurate -- our definition of ."


Output: "Outside of recall elections, ""there's never been a public official removed from office"" in Wisconsin ""for anything but malfeasance in office."