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 Input:
"""We're No. 23"" may not sound like a stirring claim, but Gov. John Kasich has been using one version of it to lead cheers for Ohio. ""We jumped 11 spaces since beginning this year in terms of being job-friendly,"" he said in an interview July 12, 2011, with former Fox News colleague Sean Hannity, crediting the improvement to ""probably the most massive comprehensive piece of legislation passed in modern times in Ohio."" He was referring to the recently passed state budget, which he signed into law June 30. He cited more accomplishments and some sources of information when he repeated the claim the next day with former House colleague Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC: ""My state was dying. It is my job to get us out of this. We jumped, according to CNBC, 11 places since I've become governor as business friendly in America."" And Kasich got a third chance to tout Ohio July 17, 2001, on NBC's ""Meet the Press,"" telling host David Gregory: ""Ohio was dying, and we are beginning to really become business-friendly. ... In Ohio, because we faced our $8 billion budget deficit and provide tax relief, what's happened? CNBC says we've jumped 11 points, 11 places in terms of business-friendly."" PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look at the claim. The governor’s office confirmed he was talking about CNBC's annual rating of ""America's top states for business,"" which the business channel released in June. Ohio ranked 23rd. That is, in fact, an advance of 11 spots from last year’s list, which made Ohio the most improved state (followed by Florida and Pennsylvania). CNBC said its study used input from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness to rank states in 10 categories: cost of doing business; workforce; quality of life; economy; transportation and infrastructure; technology and innovation; education; business friendliness; access to capital, and cost of living. Ohio's biggest improvement came in the ""cost of doing business"" category, based on tax burden, including individual income and property taxes, and business taxes, particularly as they apply to new investments. Utilities, wages and rental space were also figured. That specific improvement was hailed by the Ohio Business Development Coalition, which said, ""Ohio improved to 5th place from 29th place last year due to a multi-year effort to reform the state's tax structure, which took full effect in 2010."" In April, the coalition noted, a report from Ernst & Young with the Council On State Taxation ranked Ohio as having the third friendliest tax environment in the nation. Those tax reforms came before Kasich's watch, however; they started two administrations ago, under Republican Gov. Bob Taft and a GOP-controlled legislature in 2005. Kasich can claim some credit in the category of economy, where the study measured each state’s fiscal health by looking at projected budget gaps or surpluses for the coming fiscal year. Ohio moved up 10 spots to 24th. We think it's fair to allow the governor some license for salesmanship, but we don't think it's splitting hairs to note that the CNBC study did not give Ohio high marks for being ""job friendly"" or ""business friendly"" as he stated. His underlying meaning is that Ohio’s business climate has improved, and his wording is similar to the name of the study, ""America’s top states for business."" But Ohio did not fare as well in some of the study’s 10 categories as it did overall. One category specifically graded states ""on the perceived 'friendliness' of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business."" Ohio ranked 42nd in it. The state was dead last in the ""workforce"" category. CNBC says states were rated ""on the education level of their workforce, as well as the numbers of available workers. We also considered union membership. While organized labor contends that a union workforce is a quality workforce, that argument, more often than not, doesn’t resonate with business. We also looked at the relative success of each state’s worker training programs in placing their participants in jobs."" CNBC's list is one of many. Chief Executive magazine annually rates the ""best/worst states for business,"" using input on ""overall business-friendliness"" from 550 CEOs. Ohio this year ranked 41st -- improved two places from last year but down 19 places from 2006, making the state one of the biggest losers over five years (with Illinois, Washington, Maryland and Pennsylvania). The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation ranked Ohio 46th in its state business tax rankings for 2011. But the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, a trade group that represents small businesses and advocates for less government regulation, annually issues a rigorous ""Business Tax Index"" that pulls together 18 different tax measures to rank the states from best to worst in terms of the costs of their tax systems on entrepreneurship and small business. The index for 2011, published in April, ranked Ohio 9th. The SBE Council also has a ""Small Business Survival Index"" that evaluates states in 36 categories including  corporate and income taxes, gas and diesel taxes, government spending, health care and energy costs, inheritance taxes, and workers compensation costs. The latest, released in December, rated Ohio 9th in the nation, up from 11th a year earlier. So where does that leave the governor’s claim? He was correct that Ohio jumped 11 places in a study from CNBC, although he misstated the name of the study. The state didn’t fare as well in some catagories of that study, including one that specifically looked at perceived friendliness to business. There also are several other rankings for business climate and tax burdens out there. In some of those, Ohio has shown improvement. Others, however, still have the state low in their rankings. And some of the tax changes that boosted the state were put in place by previous administrations. Kasich was trying to show progress in Ohio, selling both the state and his stewardship. In his claim, he was citing only one study. On that study his statement was accurate, but these other points help clarify the picture. On the Truth-O-Meter, that gets a rating of ."

Ex Output:
We jumped 11 places since beginning this year in terms of being job-friendly.


Ex Input:
Seasoned explorer Robert Swan and his 23-year-old son Barney will begin their eight week, 600-mile expedition on Wednesday, hoping to show renewable energy can work in extreme conditions and prove a viable alternative to fossil fuels. “For the first time in history we will be surviving only on renewable energy. It’s never been done,” 61-year-old polar veteran Swan, the first person to walk to both the North and South poles, told Reuters. The Swans’ 5,000 daily calorie intake will come from sustainable and energy-giving foods, such as grains and almond bars, to help them overcome temperatures of -40 degrees Celsius and the obvious risks of frostbite, altitude sickness and snow blindness. Perpetual sunlight will charge the solar panels, which will power a NASA-designed ice melter to provide them with enough water for drinking and cooking. “Water is gold down in Antarctica, without it you’re going to be dying pretty quickly, as dad always reminds me,” said Barney Swan. While their aim is to complete the trek using just solar energy, under extreme weather conditions they’ll turn to an advanced biofuel made out of wood chip waste. “The fuels have been tested to minus 60 degrees Celsius...it won’t get as cold as minus 60. We may get minus 40 which is, trust me, cold enough,” the elder Swan said.

Ex Output:
Father-son team plans Antarctic trek powered by renewable energy.


Ex Input:
This release notes several times that sestamibi SPECT/CT is inexpensive and widely available. It would have been good to include some cost estimates, particularly since reducing unneeded surgeries by the “thousands” presumably would be a huge cost savings. The release states that “The addition of sestamibi SPECT/CT increased the reviewers’ diagnostic certainty in 14 of the 48 patients, or in nearly 30 percent of all cases,” and that “Conventional imaging combined with sestamibi SPECT/CT had a value of 0.85, while conventional imaging alone had a value of 0.60.” The release offers that “a value of 0.50 indicates that a diagnostic test is no better than chance,” to give readers a benchmark for comparison. The release does address harms in terms of reduced harms from adding the imagining technology to standard diagnostic tests: “Even for patients whose tumors were not reclassified, the addition of sestamibi SPECT/CT increased physicians’ ability to more confidently classify malignant tumors, which reduces the risk of misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery for all patients, the researchers say.” However, the potential harms from the test itself are not mentioned. Like CT, the test involves the use of ionizing radiation known to increase the risk of cancer. Though often minor, the contrast imaging agents (also called tracers or “dye”) injected prior to the test can cause allergic reactions, headaches, chest pain, dizziness, and other reactions. The release clearly states that the radiologists evaluating the imagery were unaware of the results of the surgery, that is, whether the tumors were cancerous or benign. It also states that “similarly ‘blinded’ pathologists analyzed the tumors without knowing the radiologists’ imaging results.”  This blinding of the researchers lends credibility to the findings even though the study itself involved a small number of participants. No evidence of disease mongering here. The release provides a good discussion of why more accurate imaging is needed for kidney tumor diagnosis. The release didn’t mention a funder. The release describes the results of comparing the diagnostic accuracy of regular CT or MRI scans alone or with the addition of sestamibi SPECT/CT imaging. The release also states that the alternative to diagnostic certainty is surgery, even when it is unknown whether the tumor is malignant or non-cancerous. The release notes in several places, including in the first sentence, that the technique is “widely available.” We know that to be true. The release states that radiologists at Johns Hopkins designed the approach of combining sestamibi SPECT/CT with CT or MRI to improve diagnostic accuracy in kidney tumors. Sestamibi SPECT/CT itself is not new. It is the standard imaging choice for assessing problems with the parathyroid glands, which are adjacent to the thyroid gland. The release does not rely on unjustifiable language.

Ex Output:

Noninvasive Imaging Test Shown Accurate in Ruling Out Kidney Cancers