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]: Castro spoke with party activists at a crowded house party in North Liberty after forming an exploratory committee last month. Castro said that he would announce his presidential campaign on Saturday in San Antonio and that he looked forward to meeting with Iowa voters before the first-in-the-nation caucuses next year. Castro said that he would lay out his vision for making the United States “the smartest, the healthiest, the fairest and the most prosperous nation in the world.” He said that his plans will include expanding Medicare to allow access for all and addressing what he called a housing affordability crisis in which rising rents are squeezing the poor and middle class. Castro, who served as the nation’s housing secretary during President Barack Obama’s second term, also promised that he will not accept money from political action committees tied to corporations and unions. “What you’re going to hear from me is that I’m not taking that PAC money, that I support universal health care, and that I’ve shown in my time in public service an ability to stand with the people instead of the special interests, and I’ve taken action to do that,” said Castro, 44. Castro shook hands, spoke and fielded questions for an hour as guests sipped wine from plastic cups. He received a warm welcome from the activists, who said they were eager for someone who could defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. North Liberty is a fast-growing bedroom community that’s located near Iowa City in Johnson County, which has long been the state’s liberal stronghold. Castro’s visit was the latest activity in Iowa as the field of candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination begins to take shape. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts visited the state over the weekend after forming her own exploratory committee, and several more candidates are expected to join the race soon. Castro acknowledged that some Democrats will view his and other candidates’ decisions to not accept PAC money as tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gun fight.” But he said that the Democratic nominee will have no problem raising money from individuals who want change and that the decision sends an important message. “I think it says something, that if a candidate doesn’t take that money, they’re going to work for you,” he said. “If I’m elected, that’s what I’m going to do.”
[EX A]: Castro vows to champion health care, housing during 2020 bid.

[EX Q]: Hungary has officially recorded 980 confirmed cases and 66 deaths in the pandemic, although the government has acknowledged the number of actual cases is probably much higher as the country nears the phase of mass infections. The country introduced stay at home orders last month. That order was about to expire over the Easter weekend, when Hungarians traditionally visit family and men go around playfully spraying women with water or cologne in a fertility ritual. “This Easter will differ from the ones we know,” Orban said in a video recorded in his office and posted on his Facebook page. “The curfew restrictions have been reasonable and successful as they have slowed the spread of the epidemic.”  The government would review the need to maintain the lockdown each week, Orban said, adding that municipal governments would be allowed to impose special restrictions that ensure local communities are protected. As spring weather arrived in recent days, Hungarians sought out leisure spots, prompting mayors and local councils to plead everyone to stay away. More than 100 people were infected in a Budapest retirement home, Surgeon General Cecilia Muller said. The state news agency MTI quoted Muller as saying five of those people have died.
[EX A]: Hungary prolongs coronavirus lockdown indefinitely as infections near 1,000.

[EX Q]: Access to an interactive site for purposes of computing a score predicting one’s risk of dying will be free. However, this should have been stated in the release. We can’t rate the release Satisfactory if there’s no mention of cost at all, so we’ll rate it Not Applicable. Very little about this news release is quantitative. The document repeatedly lauds the benefits of predicting 5-year mortality via self-reports rather than more intrusive physical tests, and it touts the potential use of the “Ubble age” score to assist doctors in identifying “high risk” patients and to improve individuals’ self-awareness. But no studies have been conducted to test effects on either of these audiences, a concern which the release refers to only at the end of the document. The release could have included that information higher up in the release and emphasized it more. The release does mention that the algorithm was validated and shown to have an ~80% accuracy. But as noted above, this is a population level estimate. The overall test characteristics of the model do not translate into an interpretation that is meaningful for an individual. One could argue that this is mainly the fault of the original study rather than the release, as we could find no data in the paper that provides information that an individual could use to determine how accurate their particular calculation was. However, this problem contributes to an overall sense that the release is weighted too far in the direction of benefits without enough attention to potential harms and uncertainties. The text does offer a brief cautionary note when it quotes from the commentary of a couple of UK scientists in The Lancet issue to the effect that “whether this will help individuals improve self-awareness of their health status…or only lead to so-called cyberchondria, is a moot point.” Cyberchondria refers to unfounded anxiety concerning the state of one’s health brought on by visiting health and medical websites, so that term seems apt here. And “moot” conveys the uncertainty surrounding outcomes as, again, the study can offer no evidence. We’ll give a Satisfactory rating, though we wonder if it would have been more effective to say, “it is unclear whether use of this information will lead to actions that will help or harm individuals.” The data used came from a gargantuan epidemiological study involving nearly half a million UK respondents. The news release offers some details about that study, including the number of possible predictors (655) and the nature of the analysis. The text also contains a caveat reminding the reader that prediction is not the same as causation (a variant on the “correlation is not causation” theme), as well as a quote from one of the investigators that cautions against seeing one’s score as a “deterministic prediction.” These are important qualifiers, but they occur lower in the press release, and it is not clear how well those points will get picked up in subsequent stories. We didn’t see anything that implied a doomsday perspective to use of this data. The release also clearly implies this is for UK citizens and not for others. So we’ll award a Satisfactory rating, although we’d note again that there’s an aspect of this test that could possibly lead to increased anxiety and “cyberchondria,” as the release puts it. Funders are clearly identified in the notes at the bottom of the press release. The investigators assert the absence of conflicts of interest in the journal article itself. The study and its press release make much of the potential advantage of predicting death via self-report questions rather than biological tests. So the text makes an overt comparison, admittedly without data. The release could also have included the comparison to doing nothing. Whether providing any risk information (this version or another) or no risk information makes a difference is a legitimate question. Notes at the end of the news release speak to the availability of the interactive “Ubble” website once the research article is published. We could not access the calculator, perhaps due to high traffic levels accompanying the rollout. The news release is explicit about the novelty of the approach to prediction, as well as regarding the scale of the study itself. We suspect it is correct in this assessment, as the epidemiological study on which the work is based is truly huge. One of the investigators refers to the study’s development of a prediction score from self-report data as “exciting,” but most of the quotes, while positive, also convey useful information, including qualifiers.
[EX A]:
Simple score predicts risk of death for middle-aged adults in the UK