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'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Gov. Bruce Rauner’s signing of a controversial abortion bill last month triggered an avalanche of protest from his fellow Illinois Republicans and anti-abortion groups, who said he had betrayed them. The bill, House Bill 40, removed a ""trigger provision"" in Illinois law that would have made abortion illegal should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade. It also made abortion eligible for coverage under Medicaid in Illinois and under the state’s employee health insurance plan. Opponents were angry that Rauner broke a promise he made five months earlier to veto the bill because of its Medicaid and insurance component, which for the first time would use state taxpayer funds to pay for abortion outside of cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother. They also claimed Rauner reneged on a campaign pledge that he had ""no social agenda,"" which they interpreted as Rauner having no plans to change the state’s abortion laws. In a Sept. 28 press conference in which he announced his intent to sign the bill, Rauner lamented that he could not convince Democratic lawmakers to split the legislation into separate bills, one covering the trigger provision and the other dealing with insurance coverage. But he defended his action as consistent with his pro-choice principles. ""I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor,"" Rauner said. Rauner’s statement sent us combing through video clips, ads and news coverage of the 2014 gubernatorial election to see if he really was consistent in presenting his pro-choice stance to voters during that hotly contested race. Here’s what we found. Rauner, a wealthy private equity investor who had never run for elected office, sought to build his campaign solely on economic, educational and political reform issues. He stated often that he had no social agenda, and his wife, Diana, appeared in a campaign ad making that very statement. This helped Rauner avoid taking a direct stand on same-sex marriage, which was a hot topic in Illinois politics in the months preceding the 2014 GOP primary for governor. In May 2013, just before Rauner formally declared his candidacy, longtime state GOP chairman Pat Brady resigned in part because of fallout from him having declared his support for same-sex marriage. Rauner’s no-social-agenda claim also proved useful when it came to navigating the political minefield of abortion. To win election in a Democratic-leaning state, Rauner needed to get votes from Democrats who support abortion rights and moderate Republicans without antagonizing social conservatives. ""My opponent is desperate for social issues to become prominent in the campaign,"" Rauner said in a campaign appearance with his running mate, Evelyn Sanguinetti, in June 2014. ""And I’ve been crystal clear: I do not have a social agenda. Evelyn and I are not running on social issues. We all have our personal beliefs. We are not advocating leading on social issues, we are fine with the status quo on that."" That said, we found several examples in which Rauner explained his position on access to abortion during the campaign. In an appearance before Wauconda Township Republicans on Oct. 2, 2013, Rauner said: ""Abortion is a tragedy. It’s a loss of life. To me that’s not debatable. However, I do not advocate making it illegal. I can’t, I won’t, I’m not going to talk about making it illegal. I’m going to work and support efforts to make it safe and rare. Parental notification, late-term restrictions, teaching abstinence outside of marriage and strongly encouraging adoption as a far better alternative."" To residents of HeatherRidge community in Gurnee on Nov. 3, 2013: ""The reality is the right for a woman to choose is the national law and we’re not gonna, that ain’t gonna change in Illinois. I think we can agree on some common-sense ways where abortion can be more rare and safe. I support parental notification. I support late-term restrictions. I strongly encourage adoption as a far better alternative to abortion. There are things we can agree on to work on to try and get done, realistically… ""I just think it’s better for a woman and her physician and her family and her minister or priest make the decision than the government. That’s my view. People can disagree with me. I respect that. But that’s my view, it ain’t gonna change."" It came up in an interview on the ""Big John and Amy Show"" on WIND-AM 560 on March 17, 2014: Amy Jacobson: ""If there was a possibility that the decision was passed from federal to state jurisdiction, what would your position be?"" Rauner: ""My position would be abortion is a tragedy but it should be an issue left to a woman with her physician and her family and her minister, not the government."" It wasn’t just the candidate himself proclaiming his ""pro-choice"" bona fides during the campaign. Diana Rauner, head of the child advocacy concern the Ounce of Prevention Fund, became a strong spokeswoman for her husband’s no-social-agenda agenda, especially where it concerned reproductive rights. ""You can trust him that there’s no way he will ever let anything happen to our reproductive rights,"" Diana Rauner said in an interview with NBC5 political reporter Mary Ann Ahern on Sept. 26, 2014. ""I actually think this is a great opportunity in this race where we actually don’t have to think about the social issues because both candidates are pro-choice."" The campaign featured a 30-second TV ad in which Diana, who claimed to be a Democrat,  sought to bring Democrats to her husband’s side by telling viewers, ""Bruce doesn't have a social agenda. He has an economic and educational agenda."" After an Oct. 24, 2014, event in Chicago in which feminist icon Gloria Steinem endorsed Quinn and accused Rauner of financially supporting anti-abortion causes and candidates. ""In terms of money and action, he is, in fact, anti-choice,"" Steinem said during her appearance with Quinn. Diana Rauner provided the response in an interview with then ABC-7 political reporter Charles Thomas. ""Bruce has a strong history of being a supporter of reproductive rights,"" she said. ""He’s a social moderate and he’s committed to education and has shown that commitment over the years."" Throughout the campaign, Rauner found himself in the strange position of being a Republican candidate forced to deny charges that he opposed abortion. Despite Rauner’s many statements to the contrary, the Quinn campaign sought to portray Rauner as a major funder of anti-abortion candidates and organizations. The Chicago Tribune story on Steinem’s appearance carried this rebuttal from Rauner’s campaign: ""Rauner campaign aides said the candidate and wife Diana have donated money to abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood and the Roger Baldwin Foundation."" The Baldwin Foundation is a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union that litigates issues including reproductive rights. At the same time, however, Rauner was a heavy donor to Republican candidates and state and national Republican organizations that were firmly in the anti-abortion camp. Chicago Magazine detailed the political/ideological conflict of the Rauners in an article published the day before the 2014 election headlined, ""Is Bruce Rauner Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, or Just an Opportunist?"" (I)t’s interesting to look at the self-proclaimed Democrat, Diana, who has given in 2014 the max in the primary and/or general to several Republicans, some who are decidedly not socially moderate...  Just a couple of examples: David McSweeney (abortion and gay marriage opponent), Mark Neerhof (against gay marriage). Diana has also given generously ($10,000 in 2012; $5,300 this time around) to the Republican Renaissance PAC of the late ultra-conservative Jack Roeser (anti abortion, anti gay marriage). Bruce has a much more extensive record of contributions—including $27.6 million to himself, $5 million to the state Republican party, and also, along with Diana, donations to McSweeney, Neerhof, and to Roeser’s PAC. (Roeser, who died last June, was an early Rauner backer and a member of his gubernatorial exploratory committee.) Considering the contradictory nature of the Rauners’ donations -- giving heavily to groups that support abortion rights and also to political candidates and organizations that oppose them -- it’s reasonable to believe that some anti-abortion voters might have inferred anti-abortion leanings in candidate Rauner. But we found no evidence of Rauner himself attempting to hide his  stance. In 2014, campaigning on maintaining the status quo on abortion was a viable option. State finances were a wreck and there appeared to be little pressure either way to change the state’s laws on abortion. The election of Donald Trump, who stated an intent to overturn Roe v. Wade and turn the question of abortion’s legality back to the states, changed that overnight. Almost immediately, Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly began advancing a bill to both keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade be overturned and provide insurance coverage for it under Medicaid and Illinois’ state employee health insurance. ""I look at it as an insurance parity issue. There’s no excuse about the cost,"" Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, said in December 2016. By packaging the trigger language and the expanded insurance coverage into a single bill, supporters of what became HB 40 effectively boxed Rauner by forcing the no-social-agenda governor to pick a side in the culture wars. He would infuriate pro-choice voters by either vetoing the bill outright or issuing an amendatory veto to strike the abortion insurance provision, the practical effect of which would be to kill the measure anyway. But signing HB 40 would be sure to antagonize much his Republican base, much of which remains passionately opposed to abortion. This was something Rauner had worked throughout the spring to avoid, at times sending out mixed signals about how he intended to handle the bill if lawmakers sent it to his desk. He made public statements in April promising to veto the bill as written. When he broke that promise, he faced the wrath of everyone from rank-and-file Republican lawmakers to Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich. Rauner, speaking haltingly and appearing physically uncomfortable, explained at his signing press conference that adding government funded insurance coverage was consistent with his pro-choice beliefs. ""I also believe that no woman should be forced to make a different decision than another woman make purely based on her income,"" Rauner said. ""I believe that a woman living with limited financial means should not be put in a position where she has to choose something different than a woman of higher income would be able to choose."" Bruce Rauner said his signing of a controversial abortion bill was consistent with his pro-choice principles and that he had never presented himself as anything but pro-choice. We looked through numerous campaign appearance videos, ads and news stories and found no evidence that Rauner ever tried to hide or downplay his pro-choice beliefs. In fact, his campaign touted the Rauners’ support of abortion rights groups to rebut the charge that he was not pro-choice. Rauner sought anti-abortion voters by assuring them that, as governor, he had no social agenda and that ""the right for a woman to choose is the national law and… that ain’t gonna change in Illinois."" Politically, it proved to be a smart strategy that helped gain him election in 2014. By 2017, however, it became impossible to continue finessing the issue. In picking a side, Rauner declared that he has been consistent in declaring his pro-choice beliefs." Claim: I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Democrat Charlie Crist has criticized Republican Gov. Rick Scott for the state’s failure to expand Medicaid. During the second governor’s debate, which was held on Oct. 15, 2014, at Broward College, Crist said of Medicaid expansion, ""In addition to the $51 billion it would bring to the state over the next 10 years, some studies indicate it would create about 120,000 jobs. That's the right thing to do."" That’s nearly double the number of new jobs that Crist cited this summer. If Florida expands Medicaid, would that lead to 120,000 more jobs? Studies about Medicaid and jobs Medicaid is a joint state and federal program aimed at providing health insurance to the very poor. The 2010 Affordable Care Act encourages states to expand eligibility, with the federal government paying 100 percent of the expansion for the first three years, declining to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond. The expansion would have led to 800,000 to 1 million additional Floridians signing up for Medicaid. (That’s mostly due to new Floridians who would be eligible and also because some who are already eligible but haven’t signed up would enroll for the program after publicity.) Scott initially opposed Medicaid expansion but switched his position in 2013 when he came out in support of it. But Scott didn’t lobby the GOP-led Legislature, which ultimately rejected the expansion. He hasn’t talked about it much on the campaign trail. Studies predicting job growth are based on the idea that as states expand Medicaid, new patients will access medical services they haven’t used in the past. Extra revenue will allow health care facilities to hire new workers. But the number of jobs predicted in each study varies depending upon the methodology. We only found one study that went as high as the 120,000 number Crist cited in the debate. And that study was conducted by a supporter of the expansion. Crist was citing the Florida Hospital Association’s 2013 analysis that predicts about 120,000 jobs. The association commissioned the study done by University of Florida researchers. During the debate, Crist didn’t specify any time frame. Direct jobs accounted for about one-third of the jobs, while the remainder included suppliers or secondary spending, such as when a doctor buys a new house or car. Other studies cited much lower figures for job growth. For example, Moody’s, a financial analysis firm that doesn’t have a position on the health care law, last year predicted Medicaid expansion would create 10,000 to 30,000 jobs over 10 years in Florida. The White House Council of Economic Advisers projected 63,800 jobs between 2014 and 2017 in Florida. That study was part of the Obama administration’s promotion of the Affordable Care Act. The White House study relies in part on the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, in which some residents got Medicaid through a lottery. Research showed people in Medicaid got preventative tests such as mammograms, cholesterol screening and pap smears compared to the control group. The White House predicts that Medicaid expansion would allow tens of thousands of Floridians to get those preventative tests. Experts weigh in on studies So why the massive differences on the job predictions? The numbers vary based on different economic models used and other assumptions. PolitiFact Florida interviewed several experts on the studies after the first debate, held on Telemundo, when Crist made a similar claim about new jobs from expanding Medicaid. Dan White, the senior economist who authored the Moody’s study, said that the hospital association study appears to assume that everyone who signs up under the Medicaid expansion will generate new spending. But at least some of those people who would have signed up for Medicaid were already accessing some medical services -- albeit inefficiently in emergency rooms. ""They are treating all the money coming into Medicaid expansion as new medical spending in Florida, but some of those people are already spending money,"" White said. ""The crux of our analysis is shifting who is paying for it. It might be true that those people support 120,000 jobs, but maybe 10,000 to 30,000 are new jobs."" Some experts on Medicaid expansion told PolitiFact Florida that an infusion of federal dollars for Medicaid expansion would lead to some job growth, but they questioned pinpointing a specific number. ""Pumping federal dollars into the state is likely to be stimulative, but an exact job calculation (given the many concurrent policy changes) is difficult,"" Harvard professor of health economics Katherine Baicker told PolitiFact Florida. Michael Tanner, a health care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said it’s impossible to make a jobs prediction. ""I would guess there would be some short-term employment gains, but the long term would be more problematic as bills become due,"" he said. ""But even in the short term, I am skeptical of both the size and precision of this estimate."" Though most of the experts we interviewed agreed that there would be some job growth, University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan argues that increasing Medicaid will reduce employment because people will no longer need to work full-time to get health insurance. ""Medicaid makes it less painful to have a low income, so people have less incentive to take actions to prevent their incomes from getting low,"" he previously told PolitiFact. ""Not everyone acts that way, but enough do that a Medicaid expansion would depress employment nationally."" Our ruling Crist said ""some studies indicate"" expanding Medicaid would ""create about 120,000 jobs."" Crist was referring to one study done for the Florida Hospital Association, a supporter of Medicaid expansion. That study predicted about 120,000 new jobs. There have been several studies that predict job growth related to Medicaid expansion, with one study putting the figure as low as 10,000 jobs. Crist cherry-picked the study with the highest statistic and omitted that it was done for an association that supports the expansion. Most economists and Medicaid experts say that it’s likely that the infusion of federal cash would lead to some jobs, but it is difficult to pinpoint the number." Claim: "If Florida expanded Medicaid, ""some studies indicate it would create about 120,000 jobs."
[EX A]: 1

[EX Q]: Paragraph: On 21 October 2016 a parenting blog published an editorial penned by a guilt-ridden mother  about her purported discovery of “sex mods” for the massively popular Minecraft sandbox video game: Take a minute to Google “Minecraft + sex mod.” I’ll wait … not only did my brain explode, but my heart did as well. Unfortunately, it was my kid who filled me in … I suddenly found myself looking into the tearful eyes of one of my babies who was telling me that, not only was this kid playing Minecraft when she saw this, but she was also propositioned in this “creative mode” room by another player … This child was crushed. She opened up, and told me about the things that appear in apps. She shared a lot about how she was feeling as a result of this experience that made me want to weep and weep. The virtual world is so real to our kids. She felt like it had actually happened to her in real life. It could not be shrugged off. She actually wanted me to take away her phone, the portal to this hurt. There were many tears, half of them from me. All I could do was apologize for not protecting her better. Because the truth is, it’s all my fault. I thought I was doing my due diligence in the technology department. We pay attention to how much time they spend online and limit it as well, even detoxing completely from time to time. We keep the apps they used restricted to the 10 and under age range, and Minecraft falls into this category. And still this happened. Because, sadly where the kids are, the creepers will follow. (Minecraft pun intended.) And the creepers found my baby. The post rattled off purported “stranger danger” statistics unrelated to Minecraft or “sex mods” and advised parents to take the standard steps of “locking down” and/or monitoring their children’s Internet time. (Tips of that sort are standard advice given to parents about Internet safety and have nothing to do with Minecraft specifically.) The mother in question stated she “did a little research,” but that research didn’t pertain to the existence of Minecraft sex mods. The popular parenting blog Scary Mommy tackled the topic on 24 October 2016, also presenting information largely unrelated to the functions of Minecraft: After I dropped my kids off at school, I took a deep breath and googled “minecraft sex mods.” And fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. A ton of hits come up, mostly YouTube videos. Apparently, in the app version of the game, there is a way to “craft” such cringe-worthy things as pixelated characters getting it on with each other. I could only bring myself to watch a few of the videos. (OK, just one.) I couldn’t get past the “gangsta” Minecraft dude banging a bikini-clad chick in the back room of a Minecraft whorehouse. (Yes, really.) I’ll spare you the rest because I’m a decent human being. At first, I was just happy that my 9-year-old, a Minecraft aficionado for many years, doesn’t use the app version of the game. But then I realized, duh, the kid spends a million hours watching Minecraft YouTube videos. The Scary Mommy writer similarly reported that she engaged in some “research,” which appeared to consist of viewing YouTube videos about (but not hosted by or affiliated with Minecraft). The writer was appalled that some of the videos were not age-protected, although since those videos are not official Minecraft media, responsibility for their policing rests with YouTube. Few things in 2016 have captivated children like Minecraft (software lauded for its ability to operate as a covert educational platform), and few things have terrified parents more than “sex perverts on the Internet.”  Moreover, Minecraft’s popularity with children is often matched only by their parents’ lack of understanding of the game. The confluence of these circumstances means that if a Minecraft rumor about sexual predators were to spread unchecked, children could be deprived of one of the most enjoyable learning experiences available to them. Neither of the articles referenced above explained what a Minecraft “sex mod” might be, nor how the process of modifying Minecraft works. We contacted both Minecraft maker Mojang as well as Bec Oakley, the owner of a popular Minecraft web guide for parents called MineMum. Mojang did not respond to our inquiry, but Oakley was aware of the viral rumors and explained how mods work for Minecraft players:  Here’s the deal. Mods are bits of unofficial modified game code that users can create that add items to the game or change the things that a player can do. They are then made available for anyone to download in user forums and gamer websites. They’re not an official part of the game, are not supported by Mojang (the makers of Minecraft), don’t come packaged with the game and must be added voluntarily and manually. There are thousands and thousands of these mods around, most of which are not inappropriate. But given that it is user-generated content that is not under any kind of controls or censorship, there are inappropriate mods available (there are also other types of modified content like skins and texture packs). These have been in existence for a long time, and probably since Minecraft was first released years ago. On YouTube there are thousands of videos of players playing modded games of Minecraft, and some of these involve players playing with a sex mod applied to the game. Usually these videos are age restricted but there are ones that slip through the YouTube age protection cracks. We asked Oakley whether it was possible for players to encounter Minecraft sex mods without having gone through the lengthy process of specifically installing those mods themselves. Surmising that YouTube videos (not Minecraft content) was responsible for web-wide parental alarm, she responded:  No you can’t encounter a sex mod in the game (or any mod) without having installed it. Kids aren’t going to accidentally come across this mod without someone having installed it — either in their own game or on a multiplayer server that they’re playing on. You can encounter YouTube videos of people playing with sex mods installed, I think that’s a large part of where parents are freaking out. In short, the Minecraft “sex mod” frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children’s pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no “sex mods” or “sex levels” in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to “sex mods” are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them. Claim: "Minecraft has a newly-discovered ""sex mod"" of which parents should be aware and exercise caution (or restrict the game from their children entirely)."
[EX A]:
0