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.

Example Input: With an alcohol by volume figure of 43 percent, the 2-ounce sachets are about as intoxicating as a typical 16-ounce beer, but consumers say that’s just one of their virtues. Kouame claimed they give him a jolt of energy other drinks can’t match — just what he needs to face a long day of hectic traffic, run-ins with police and testy fare negotiations. “It inspires me. It gives me a bit of courage to confront the challenges of life,” he said. From now on, however, Ivory Coast’s government wants Kouame to get his courage elsewhere. Last month, officials announced a ban on alcohol sachets, citing their health risks and the need to combat alcoholism, especially among youth. The measure is one of more than a half-dozen bans or partial bans on alcohol sachets in effect in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Health Organization. Other countries with bans include Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo and South Sudan, said Jean-Marie Vianny Maurice Yameogo, the WHO’s Ivory Coast representative. Tracking the sales of alcohol sachets, many containing spirits distilled from palm wine, is difficult because they are often produced outside regulated markets. The sachets are typically mass-produced in West Africa, with colorful packaging. The drink “Amour Profond,” or “Deep Love,” shows a man standing behind a bare-shouldered woman, whispering into her ear. The sachets are not necessarily more potent than other drinks available. Palm wine-based traditional drinks such as koutoukou, which are similarly cheap, can have alcohol by volume rates of more than 50 percent. But sachets are more likely to contain toxic chemicals such as methanol, or wood alcohol, Yameogo said. And the packaging often boasts of health and other benefits that Yameogo said have no basis in science. Some are said to provide cures for maladies such as hemorrhoids, while others are reputed to function as appetite-suppressants or aphrodisiacs. Moreover, the small sachets are easy to hide, making them especially tempting for schoolchildren, according to the Ivorian government and the WHO. “It’s something that’s accessible to everyone. You can buy a sachet, put it in your pocket and just walk around like that,” said Patrick Gbodou, president of School Anti-Drug, an Ivorian organization that campaigns against drinking and drug use by students. The official drinking age in Ivory Coast is 21, but it is rarely enforced, and teenage drinking is common. Vendors are worried they will take a huge hit if the ban on sachets is enforced, as many drinkers go for sachets and nothing else. “The government needs to have pity on us,” said Adjo Abega, the owner of a bar in Abidjan’s Port-Bouet district. Drinkers generally acknowledge the health risks posed by alcohol sachets, but some criticized the government for cracking down on their favorite vice while permitting other health hazards such as cigarettes. Desire N’Guessan, an unemployed 26-year-old, began drinking sachets when he was a teenager. He said he relies on them to ward off illness and for motivation to keep looking for work. “When you are not able to overcome your timidity, it can be difficult to operate in your neighborhood,” N’Guessan said. If the government makes good on the ban, he warned, Ivorian children could turn to drugs. He also predicted marches and protests. But Kouame, the taxi driver, was less worried. In the absence of alcohol sachets, he said he would switch up his morning routine by drinking glasses of palm wine instead, adding: “Man can adapt to anything.”
Example Output: Ivory Coast is latest to crack down on alcohol sachets.

Example Input: The story does a good job of describing the costs of angiopasty compared to a stress test. The story could have discussed out of pocket costs for patients. The story could have quantified the benefit of stress testing in its ability to avoid angiography and angioplasty associated with it. The story mentions missing cases of heart disease and difficulties of performing the test in older patients as potentional harms of stress testing, but there are other harms that the story should have mentioned. The story adequately describes the design of the current study and points out some important caveats inherent in a database-based study. The story does not exagerrate the seriousness or prevalence of stable heart disease. The story quotes multiple sources. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to stress testing. The story could have done more to describe the pros and cons of angiography compared to stress testing. Clearly stress tests are available. Clearly stress testing is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Example Output: More stress tests needed before angioplasties, study says

Example Input: "NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia recently unveiled a video that uses a montage of numbers to criticize Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s stance on funding for sex education programs. Among the claims: ""$400,000 -- approximate cost to Virginians to fund ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. $2.5 million -- federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs Virginia lost due to McDonnell’s political agenda."" Are NARAL’s numbers and claims correct? We asked Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, for sources of the information. Let’s start with the statement that abstinence-only education costs the state $400,000. Keene said that’s a reference to match money Virginia provided to receive a federal grant for abstinence-only sex education. The payment allows Virginia to participate in the Title V Abstinence Education Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program promotes abstinence until marriage to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Last September, HHS announced Virginia would receive an $889,973 grant for abstinence education for fiscal 2010. States have until Sept. 30, 2012, to spend the money. The federal cash pays for 57 percent of the cost of abstinence programs approved by HHS. Participating states are required to provide the remaining 43 percent of cost. The match money can come from a variety of sources including from state coffers, foundation dollars and in-kind donations. Virginia was required to come up with about $670,000 to match the grant. Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the state is paying $382,688 towards the match. The rest is coming from in-kind contributions and community organizations awarded contracts to implement the sexual abstinence programs. So NARAL is near the bull’s-eye in claiming Virginia is paying an ""approximate"" $400,000 for abstinence-until marriage programs. Caldwell noted that the state received federal abstinence education funding under previous governors going back to the 1990s. But in 2007, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine cut the state’s funding for abstinence-only education. McDonnell reversed that decision last year. At the same time, McDonnell chose not to seek money from another federal grant program that  teaches students about contraception in addition to abstinence -- the Personal Responsibility Education Program. Unlike the federal abstinence-only money, the comprehensive sex education grant requires no match. McDonnell’s refusal to participate drew criticism from NARAL and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia. That brings us to the second part of NARAL’s claim, that Virginia lost $2.5 million in federal money for comprehensive sex education under McDonnell. As a source, NARAL cited an HHS 49-page announcement of the PREP grant, which was created under the 2010 health care reform law. The HHS synopsis shows Virginia was estimated to receive a total of $2,593,487 during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. That’s close to NARAL’s number. But NARAL is greatly understating its case. States that didn’t apply for the grant in fiscal 2010 and 2011 are not eligible to seek funding for the 2012-2014 fiscal years. So Virginia potentially missed out on much more than $2.6 million. Estimates for 2012-2014 allotments are not available, said Kenneth Wolfe, an HHS spokesman. Let’s recap:  A video by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said that abstinence-only programs pursued under McDonnell have cost the state about $400,000. Meanwhile, the group says the state missed out on about $2.5 million in federal funding for comprehensive sex education. It’s  the state spent about $400,000 for a federal abstinence-only grant. And it’s  that the McDonnell administration did not apply for a comprehensive sex education grant that would have sent almost $2.6 million to Virginia during fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Because Virginia is now ineligible to apply for the comprehensive grant through 2014, the state will wind up declining a much greater amount of money than NARAL claimed. We won’t penalize NARAL for understating its case. Its statement is ."
Example Output:
"Virginia spends $400,000 on abstinence programs while losing $2.5 million in federal funds due to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s ""political agenda."