Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: As much as we shampoo it, style it, cut it, and fret over it, hair continues to be a mystery to us. We speculate on its nature, especially its propensity for sprouting in our middle years in places we didn’t want it to, even as it disappears from locations where we would much rather it had stayed put. We wonder if it continues to grow after we die. (It doesn’t.) And we worry that shaving or cutting it will make hair grow back thicker or darker or coarser. Shavers and clippers take heart: in your quest for tonsorial perfection, you are not creating a larger problem for yourself through your efforts. Cutting does not stimulate new growth. (If it did, those going bald would be shaving afflicted areas to encourage regrowth of what they’re losing.) This belief probably stems from the perception that short hair seems to be tougher than longer hair. Hair expert Philip Kingsley recommends thinking of a bamboo cane: a long cane flexes easily, but the same cane cut short feels harder and tougher. Another reason for the belief resides with the naturally finer ends of uncut hair: compare the end of a long-lived hair with that of a hair recently cut or shaved, and you’ll see the one is thicker than the other. That could lead the less-than-careful to conclude that the whole of the hair’s shaft became thicker as a result of the hair’s being cut (which it didn’t) rather than to realize that shaving or cutting results in a blunt termination, whereas natural outgrowth concludes in a tapering. The part of the hair we style is already dead. The living sections lie below the surface of the scalp. Cutting or shaving the extreme end of the dead section isn’t going to have an impact on the parts that are alive. Go forth to shave and trim as much as you like — you will not be affecting the intrinsic nature of your hair. Other mistaken hair beliefs include: My hair is gray, but not with years, Nor grew it white In a single night As men’s have grown from sudden fears. For most, the greying process is a gradual progression which takes place across a span of years, but for some it can occur at an accelerated rate or at a very early age. Hair loss conditions such as alopecia areata can also cause all of the still-pigmented hairs on a head to fall out, leaving only the grey hairs (which are more resistant), resulting in a dramatic and seemingly “overnight” change. Yet, when a person whose hair would have gone grey quickly anyway is subjected to horrible news, this coincidence is seized upon as evidence that the horrible news caused the early greyness. (Former first lady Barbara Bush is often pointed to as an example of the “grey overnight from shock” group. In 1953, when she was 28, her 3-year-old daughter, Robin, died of leukemia. During the months-long battle to save the child, Mrs. Bush’s hair became white.) Claim: Shaving makes your hair grow back in thicker, faster, and fuller.

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: "Hillary Clinton is in the political crosshairs as the author of a new book alleges improper financial ties between her public and personal life. At issue in conservative author Peter Schweizer’s forthcoming book Clinton Cash are donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the four years she served as secretary of state. George Stephanopoulos used an interview with Schweizer on ABC This Week to point out what other nonpartisan journalists have found: There is no ""smoking gun"" showing that donations to the foundation influenced her foreign policy decisions. Still, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the donations are ""clearly illegal"" under federal law. In his view, a donation by a foreign government to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state is the same as money sent directly to her, he said, even though she did not join the foundation’s board until she left her post. ""The Constitution of the United States says you cannot take money from foreign governments without explicit permission of the Congress. They wrote that in there because they knew the danger of corrupting our system by foreign money is enormous,"" Gingrich said. ""You had a sitting secretary of state whose husband radically increased his speech fees, you have a whole series of dots on the wall now where people gave millions of dollars — oh, by the way, they happen to get taken care of by the State Department."" He continued, ""My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was secretary of State. That is clearly illegal."" PunditFact wanted to know if a criminal case against Clinton is that open and shut. Is what happened ""clearly illegal""? A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation certainly disagreed, calling Gingrich’s accusation ""a baseless leap"" because Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while serving as a senator or secretary of state. We did not hear from Gingrich by our deadline. Foundation basics Former President Clinton started the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2001, the year after Hillary Clinton won her first term as a New York senator. The foundation works with non-governmental organizations, the private sector and governments around the world on health, anti-poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change initiatives. Spokesman Craig Minassian said it’s reasonable for the foundation to accept money from foreign governments because of the global scope of its programs, and the donations are usually in the form of tailored grants for specific missions. Hillary Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while she was a senator or secretary of state. Her appointment to the latter post required Senate confirmation and came with an agreement between the White House and Clinton Foundation that the foundation would be more transparent about its donors. According to the 2008 memorandum of understanding, the foundation would release information behind new donations and could continue to collect donations from countries with which it had existing relationships or running grant programs. If countries with existing contributions significantly stepped up their contributions, or if a new foreign government wanted to donate, the State Department would have to approve. Clinton took an active role in fundraising when she left the State Department and the foundation became the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013. But she left the board when she announced her run for the presidency in April 2015. The Emoluments Clause So how does Gingrich come up with the claim that Clinton Foundation donations are ""clearly illegal"" and unconstitutional? The answer is something known as the Emoluments Clause. A few conservative websites have made similar arguments in recent days, including the Federalist blog. The Emoluments Clause, found in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, reads in part: ""No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."" The framers came up with this clause to prevent the government and leaders from granting or receiving titles of nobility and to keep leaders free of external influence. (An emolument, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is ""the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites."") Lest you think the law is no longer relevant, the Pentagon ethics office in 2013 warned employees the ""little known provision"" applies to all federal employees and military retirees. There’s no mention of spouses in the memo. J. Peter Pham, director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, said interpretation of the clause has evolved since its adoption at the Constitutional Convention, when the primary concern was about overseas diplomats not seeking gifts from foreign powers they were dealing with. The Defense Department memo, in his view, goes beyond what the framers envisioned for the part of the memo dealing with gifts. ""I think that, aside from the unambiguous parts, the burden would be on those invoking the clause to show actual causality that would be in violation of the clause,"" Pham said. Expert discussion We asked seven different constitutional law experts on whether the Clinton Foundation foreign donations were ""clearly illegal"" and a violation of the Emoluments Clause. We did not reach a consensus with their responses, though a majority thought the layers of separation between the foundation and Hillary Clinton work against Gingrich. The American system often distinguishes between public officers and private foundations, ""even if real life tends to blur some of those distinctions,"" said American University law professor Steve Vladeck. Vladeck added that the Emoluments Clause has never been enforced. ""I very much doubt that the first case in its history would be because a foreign government made charitable donations to a private foundation controlled by a government employee’s relative,"" he said. ""Gingrich may think that giving money to the Clinton Foundation and giving money to then-Secretary Clinton are the same thing. Unfortunately for him, for purposes of federal regulations, statutes, and the Constitution, they’re formally — and, thus, legally — distinct."" Robert Delahunty, a University of St. Thomas constitutional law professor who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1989 to 2003, also called Gingrich’s link between Clinton and the foreign governments’ gifts to the Clinton Foundation as ""implausible, and in any case I don’t think we have the facts to support it."" ""The truth is that we establish corporate bodies like the Clinton Foundation because the law endows these entities with a separate and distinct legal personhood,"" Delahunty said. John Harrison, University of Virginia law professor and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1990 to 1993, pointed to the Foreign Gifts Act, 5 U.S.C. 7432, which sets rules for how the Emoluments Clause should work in practice. The statute spells out the minimal value for acceptable gifts, and says it applies to spouses of the individuals covered, but ""it doesn’t say anything about receipt of foreign gifts by other entities such as the Clinton Foundation."" ""I don’t know whether there’s any other provision of federal law that would treat a foreign gift to the foundation as having made to either of the Clintons personally,"" Harrison said, who added that agencies have their own supplemental rules for this section, and he did not know if the State Department addressed this. Other experts on the libertarian side of the scale thought Gingrich was more right in his assertion. Clinton violates the clause because of its intentionally broad phrasing about gifts of ""any kind whatever,"" which would cover indirect gifts via the foundation, said Dave Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University and research director at the libertarian Independence Institute. Kopel also brought up bribery statutes, which would require that a gift had some influence in Clinton’s decision while secretary of state. Delahunty thought Kopel’s reasoning would have ""strange consequences,"" such as whether a state-owned airline flying Bill Clinton to a conference of former heads of state counted as a gift to Hillary Clinton. Our ruling Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation ""took money from from foreign governments while (Hillary Clinton) was secretary of state. It is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."" A clause in the Constitution does prohibit U.S. officials such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from receiving gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. But the gifts in this case were donations from foreign governments that went to the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary Clinton. She was not part of the foundation her husband founded while she was secretary of state. Does that violate the Constitution? Some libertarian-minded constitutional law experts say it very well could. Others are skeptical. What’s clear is there is room for ambiguity, and the donations are anything but ""clearly illegal."" The reality is this a hazy part of U.S. constitutional law. Claim: "The money the Clinton Foundation took from from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state ""is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: "Much has been made of the United States' success in reducing the amount of drinking and driving over the past few decades. But is there a growing problem with drivers on drugs? During a March 31, 2010, interview on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Gil Kerlikowske -- the head of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, and more commonly known as the drug czar -- seemed to suggest as much. ""More people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol,"" Kerlikowske said. ""A recent roadside survey showed that 16 percent of the people tested, tested positive for illicit or licit drugs. That's significantly higher than alcohol."" This surprised us, so we decided to take a closer look. We located the study that Kerlikowske was referring to -- the National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. It was conducted in 2007 for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- part of the federal Department of Transportation -- through a contract with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. It was the fourth major roadside survey (earlier ones were undertaken in 1973, 1986 and 1996) and was the first to look at drugs as well as alcohol. The 2007 study randomly stopped drivers at 300 U.S. locations on weekend nights (10 p.m. through midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, and 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays) and also made some daytime stops for comparisons. Participation in the survey and its testing was voluntary. The stops targeted private vehicles, including motorcycles, but they excluded commercial vehicles such as semitrailer trucks. In all, 11,000 drivers participated, with 86 percent tested by breathalyzer, 71 percent by oral fluid samples and 39 percent by blood samples. (The blood test was for nighttime drivers only.) Because the nighttime sample provides the most complete data on drug use, we'll stick to the nighttime sample for alcohol use as well. During the nighttime tests, 2.2 percent of drivers registered a blood-alcohol content of at least .08 percent -- the level at which a driver is presumed impaired under Florida law. By contrast, a whopping 16.3 percent of drivers tested positive for drugs, defined in the study as ""illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter products, including stimulants, sedatives, antidepressants, marijuana, and narcotic analgesics."" The most commonly detected drugs were marijuana (8.6 percent), cocaine (3.9 percent) and methamphetamine (1.3 percent). If that were the end of the story, Kerlikowske's comment would be resoundingly accurate -- 16.3 percent is indeed ""significantly higher"" than 2.2 percent. But there are two caveats that deserve a mention. •  Legal vs. illegal levels of alcohol. The 2.2 percent of drivers registering .08 or above is, by historical standards, impressively low -- that number has steadily declined since the first survey, from 7.5 percent in 1973 to 5.4 percent in 1986 to 4.3 percent in 1996 before dropping to 2.2 percent in 2007. Still, that number underestimates the total percentage of drivers who registered some alcohol in their bloodstream. In all, the survey found that 12.4 percent of drivers had some alcohol in their bloodstream -- 7.9 percent with levels between .005 and .049 and an additional 2.3 percent with levels between .05 and .079. Low, but detectible, blood-alcohol levels do not impair a driver as much as illegal levels do, but they can have an effect. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, such symptoms as ""mild euphoria, talkativeness, decreased inhibitions, decreased attention, impaired judgment and increased reaction time"" can begin at .03 percent, and numerous countries have set legal thresholds lower than .08. Indeed, the California Department of Motor Vehicles says that blood-alcohol content below .08 percent ""does not mean that it is safe or legal to drive."" The state calls levels from .01 to .04 a ""possible DUI"" (driving under the influence) and .05 to .07 a ""likely DUI."" For drivers under 21, both categories are illegal outright. •  We don't know much about how drugs affect the act of driving. Compared to the effects of alcohol, the impact of drugs on driving is not yet well understood. Some of this has to do with the long head start in research on alcohol and driving, and some has to do with the greater chemical complexity of drugs compared to alcohol. The authors of the study were open about the limitations of today's knowledge. ""In addition to the prevalence of drug use by drivers,"" they wrote, ""several other questions need to be answered in order to assess the drug-impaired driving problem, including: Which drugs impair driving ability? What drug dose levels are associated with impaired driving? Which drugs are associated with higher crash rates?"" They added a strongly worded caveat. ""The reader is cautioned that drug presence does not necessarily imply impairment,"" they wrote. ""For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed. For example, traces of marijuana can be detected in blood samples several weeks after chronic users stop ingestion. Also, whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol are well understood, little evidence is available to link concentrations of other drug types to driver performance."" To offer a more concrete example, it's unclear how much impact a joint of marijuana inhaled two weeks ago may have on a driver today. It could well be that the two-week-old joint is less of an impairment than a legal level of alcohol in the blood -- even though the study would count the marijuana user as part of that 16 percent ""under the influence of drugs"" yet exclude someone with .07 percent alcohol from the 2.2 percent of alcohol-impaired drivers. Thomas McLellan, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, told PolitiFact that the sensitivity of the oral swabs makes it ""highly unlikely"" that marijuana use ""even half a day earlier would have shown up"" in the survey. Still, in addition to the survey authors' written caution, several independent experts we contacted agreed that the lack of data on drug-use-and-driving interactions suggests that the survey's results be taken with a degree of caution. Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, added that there's strong evidence that, regardless of the comparative data on substances in drivers' systems, ""drunk driving is still the bigger problem. . . . Alcohol-related crashes were 32 percent of the total in 2008. There’s no comparable data for drug-related crashes, since there are no standards for drug impairment while driving, but the estimates are in the 10 percent to 15 percent range."" If you look no further than the outcome of the survey he cites, Kerlikowske's comment are accurate. But the caveats listed above reduce our confidence that, as he puts it, ""more people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol."" There's reason to believe that not all of the 16 percent of drivers testing positive for drugs would have been ""under the influence of drugs."" The survey only reveals who has some level of drugs in their system, and does not provide an accurate measure of who was impaired by drugs when they were surveyed. By the same token, it's quite possible that many more than 2.2 percent of the study participants were indeed ""driving under the influence of alcohol"" even if they weren't over the .08 legal threshold. Did these two percentages approach each other in the middle, thus undermining Kerlikowske's statement? Maybe -- or maybe he is right after all. Ultimately, the research isn't yet detailed enough to be sure. With this degree of uncertainty," Claim: More people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol. A recent roadside survey showed that 16 percent of the people tested, tested positive for illicit or licit drugs. That's significantly higher than alcohol.

Answer:
1