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'.

Paragraph: The advent of various technologies enabling contact with emergency services (or easier identification during such an event) has not quelled interest in core functions of long-standing institutions such as 911 and the Emergency Alert System (EAS). A side effect of the advancement of gadgets and networks into our daily lives is lingering concern those devices will one day fail us; even the cellular phone was (in the not-so-distant past) eyed with some skepticism by first responders. Accordingly, the notion police or paramedics are best summoned via landline due to its long-developed and trustworthy capabilities remains despite the popularity and ubiquitousness of mobile phones. Landlines are are thought to make it easier to track down a person in need of assistance — and in films or on television, mobiles seem to regularly fail in moments of high tension (clip contains some profanity):  Various versions of that rumor have circulated in both the United States and the United Kingdom, dating back to at least 2006. The rumor’s functionality exists on at least two levels: one cautioning against inadvertently summoning the police (leading at best to embarrassment and at worst, actual harm), and another reassuring people (inaccurately) that even if you cannot complete a call for help, the cavalry will eventually arrive all the same. The latter notion is one where belief in the claim presents a risk, suggesting that one need only knock a landline off its receiver to eventually summon first responders. We contacted the Federal Communications Commission, which referred us to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA): As The Voice of 9-1-1™, NENA is on the forefront of all emergency communications issues. The association serves its members and the greater public safety community as the only professional organization solely focused on 9-1-1 policy, technology, operations, and education issues. With more than 9,000 members in 48 chapters across the United States and around the globe, NENA promotes the implementation and awareness of 9-1-1, as well as international three-digit emergency communications systems … Through the association’s efforts to provide effective and efficient public safety solutions, NENA strives to protect human life, preserve property, and maintain the security of our communities. A NENA representative told us he was unfamiliar with the rumor, adding that to the best of his knowledge a “presented dial tone will time out and the line will become inaccessible to inbound calls.”  (Or, to put it another way, a “busy signal.”)  Until the mid-2000s, mobile phones were largely considered a secondary form of contact to be used sparingly in the absence of a landline, and fixed-location phones were often inadvertently or (perhaps more often) deliberately left “off the hook” to disable incoming calls — a not uncommon occurrence, as one New York Times writer lamented in 2012: But there was also another part of the Friday night ritual — very likely the most important part. “Nick, go and take the phone off the hook,” my father would command. I’d excitedly rush into the hallway, lift up the phone receiver, and toss it to the floor. Then, I’d race back into the living room before showtime. As the opening credits for the movie began, the phone left off the hook would echo in the hall: Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep … and then, silence. No way to answer the phone, and no way to leave a message, meant that no one could get through. And rightly so: it was movie night, after all. Claim: A landline disengaged from its cradle will eventually self-dial 911.
0

Paragraph: Costs are not mentioned but we’ll let this pass since it’s reasonable to assume the approximate pricing of most of the dairy products tested are widely known. Main findings mentioned include: Readers are given no sense of just how much the risk is increased or decreased in these groups. The only data provided from the study is this: The risk of CHD was 26% lower in those men who consumed the highest amount of low fat (<3.5%) fermented dairy (compared to the lowest consumption group). It would be difficult for many readers to put that number into context without knowing how much low-fat/fermented dairy was consumed. Some data contained in the study might have helped put the numbers in context. According to the tables in the published manuscript, there is a modest reduction from 14 CHD events per 1,000 person years in the low intake group (of fermented dairy) to 10 CHD events per 1,000 person years in the high intake group (of fermented dairy). Since readers might interpret this study’s results as supporting consuming more fermented dairy (much of which contains saturated fats), not mentioning the potential harms of consuming too much saturated fats is a shortcoming. There are three major limitations of this study that aren’t mentioned. First, this is a prospective cohort study that can’t completely control for other health variables in the subjects being responsible for some of the changes observed. Second, the use of a food questionnaire (even with some supervision by nutritionists) is not a completely reliable way to document dairy intake; especially when trying to pinpoint amounts and subtypes of dairy. Finally, the cohort studied (Eastern Finnish men, ages 42-60) is a very specific subgroup. This limits the generalizability of the results. The news release addresses none of this. In the published manuscript the authors describe differences in smoking rates and other dietary patterns in the men who consumed more or less of the dairy types. These other differences could have accounted for all of the differences in this observational study. No disease mongering is noted in this news release. Nor does the release provide any context on the prevalence of  coronary heart disease. Funding for the study is not mentioned. Review of the authors does not reveal any major conflicts of interest. The headline suggests fermented dairy products may protect against heart attacks, but does not mention any other common sense steps that may be protective. Exercise, not smoking, and a prudent plant-based diet are other habits known to be associated with lower risk. Fermented dairy products are widely available and the news release does clearly outline several types. The news release claims that the new research gives more weight to earlier study findings. It states: “earlier studies have shown that fermented dairy products have more positive effects on blood lipid profiles and on the risk of heart disease than other dairy products.” And that “The new study provides further evidence on the health benefits that fermented dairy products may have over non-fermented ones.” Links to the earlier studies would have been helpful. As yet, it’s still speculative to claim that fermented dairy products lower the risk of CHD. No overtly unjustifiable language was used. We appreciate mention of the fact that the possible mechanisms for explaining the study’s findings are not completely understood. Claim: Fermented dairy products may protect against heart attack
0

Paragraph: "During ongoing controversy over United States Postal Service slowdowns and mail-in voting in August 2020, historian Heather Cox Richardson posted a status update to Facebook quoting United States President Donald Trump as saying that withholding USPS funding meant “they can’t have universal mail-in voting”:The post began:August 13, 2020 (Thursday)Today was another one for the history books.This morning, in an interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, Trump came out and said it: he wants to starve the United States Postal Service to destroy mail-in voting. Claiming that mail-in voting favors Democrats, he said: “Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots… Now, if we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting, they just can’t have it.”It was fairly easy to determine the veracity of the quote; myriad news outlets in the United States and abroad covered the interview between Trump and Bartiromo on August 13 2020. A clip of the comments also circulated on Twitter:Trump this morning why he won’t fund US Postal Service. “Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots … But if they don’t get those two items that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting.” pic.twitter.com/73NBmSnoNC— The Recount (@therecount) August 13, 2020That video clip started with Trump saying “they want,” with no previous context about the “they” he referenced. Those comments appeared after memes began circulating, warning voters to avoid using USPS to submit ballots in November 2020:‘Don’t Mail Ballots In, Drop at Board of Elections, This is an Inside Tip from a Postal Worker, Can’t Say More than That’Both controversies occurred against the backdrop of comments made by Trump in March 2020, in which he appeared to express disapproval of broader access to voting:Trump openly admitting if we made voting easier in America, Republicans wouldn't win electionsTrump: ""The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."" pic.twitter.com/x5HmX6uogo— Lis Power (@LisPower1) March 30, 2020With respect to the August 13 2020 Bartiromo interview on Fox Business, most clips and transcripts started with “they,” making it not entirely clear which “they” Trump referenced. However, Slate published a partial transcript of the portion of the video about USPS funding and mail-in voting. Bartiromo asked what specifically Democrats were seeking that was “causing a breakdown in any deals”:Bartiromo: What specifically are they pushing for that is causing a breakdown in any deals? Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats and the White House are still miles apart on any stimulus.Trump responded, indicating “they” were congressional Democrats:Trump: Well they’re right. And it’s their fault. They want $3.5 billion for something that’ll turn out to be fraudulent. That’s election money, basically. They want $3.5 billion for the mail-in votes. Universal mail-in ballots. They want $25 billion—billion—for the post office. Now they need that money in order to have post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now, in the meantime, they aren’t getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if you don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting. Because they’re not equipped to have it. And you see how bad it’s been with this Carolyn Maloney scam. She scammed her way into an election she probably lost. But they said mail-in ballots, its all mixed up. Paterson, New Jersey, same thing. Yesterday Virginia, 500,000 applications for ballots got sent to everybody, nobody even knows. Got sent to dogs. Got sent to dead people. Nobody has no idea what happened. They said, Oh we made a mistake, I’m sorry. Five hundred thousand ballots sent in Virginia. How do you feel about Virginia going in there when you have 500,000 phony ballot applicants? And this is all over.Bartiromo asked about whether quibbling over USPS funding and infrastructure for mail-in voting was “holding up money for the American people,” referring to stimulus payments during the COVID-19 pandemic. In his second response, Trump confirmed that funding for mail-in voting was at issue in broader negotiations:Bartiromo: This is what’s holding up money for the American people? They want mail-in voting and they want money for the post office? This is one of the sticking points that’s holding back stimulus for Americans during this coronavirus?Trump: That’s one of them. [Cross talk]Trump: That’s one of them. That’s right. Maria, how would you like to have $3.5 billion for mail-in voting. Billion! You know how much that is? Nobody has any idea, you people, Oh, you know, 3½ billion. They want $25 billion for the post office, because the post office is going to have to go to town to get these ridiculous ballots in. You know, there’s nothing wrong with getting out and voting. They voted during World War I and World War II. And they should have voter ID, because the Democrats scam the system. But two of the items are the post office, and $3.5 billion dollars for mail-in voting. Now, if we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting. They just can’t have it. So, you know.As such, the comments Heather Cox Richardson shared were accurate; Trump said Democrats sought money in order to have the post office functioning “so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” and “if we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money,” and “they can’t have universal mail-in voting … they just can’t have it.” The commentary occurred across exchanges with Bartiromo, in the same short section of an interview on Fox Business. The segment in its entirety can be viewed here.Comments" Claim: "On August 13 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump said: ""They need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots... Now, if we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting, they just can’t have it.”"

2