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: "In his address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama brought up the most explosive charge to emerge in the health care debate: the specter of ""death panels."" ""Some of people’s concerns (about the health care legislation) have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost,"" Obama told lawmakers and a national television audience on Sept. 9, 2009. ""The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."" The president was referring to a notion most prominently raised by former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in a note posted on her Facebook page on Aug. 7, 2009. ""And who will suffer the most when they ration care?"" Palin wrote. ""The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."" We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's ""level of productivity in society"" to determine whether someone is ""worthy"" of health care. When we first  assessed  Palin's claim on Aug. 7, 2009, we gave it our lowest rating — . Palin may have jumped to a conclusion about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for ""worthiness."" Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others. The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall ""conduct, support, and synthesize research"" that looks at ""outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."" The idea here, which Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag have discussed many times, is to make it easier for doctors, health care workers, insurance companies and patients to find out which treatments are the most effective, as determined by clinical studies and other research. The House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission that ""nothing in this section shall be consd to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer."" In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select. Nothing has emerged to suggest to us that the death panels claim is any more  today than it was when Palin first floated it. We still rate it as  today. In our book, that counts as a ""lie, plain and simple."" So we find Obama's claim ."
Example Output: The claim ... that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to  kill off senior citizens ... is a lie, plain and simple.

Example Input: As the 2016 school year and the election primary cycles wound to a close in California, they inevitably congealed into political brouhahas that entangled even young students. One such controversy involved the case of third-grader Logan Autry and his “Make America Great Again” hat: Third-grader Logan Autry, 9, said officials at Powers-Ginsburg Elementary School in Fresno told him to remove his “Make America Great Again” hat because it could stir “negative emotions” in other children. The red baseball cap with the phrase printed in white capital letters has become almost synonymous with the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. “The principal told me to take it off, and I still didn’t take it off,” Autry [said]. “And she said it was against the dress code to wear the hat, but I looked in the dress code and it was not against it.” The Fresno Unified School District’s dress codes for the 2015-2016 school year are fairly easy to track down online, and they haven’t changed much (if at all) from those of previous years: Any apparel, hair style, cosmetic or jewelry, even if not specifically mentioned below, which creates a safety concern, draws undue attention to the wearer, or tends to distract from the educational process is prohibited unless addressed elsewhere in this regulation. Additionally, the following items are specifically prohibited: What many stories didn’t mention was that Logan Autry wore the hat for several days before the school, seeing it as a potential distraction, intervened and told him to remove it: Our job as educators is to facilitate a safe learning environment where we encourage robust conversations of diverse and thoughts. We are proud that in this case, our school achieved that goal by allowing the student to wear his hat for several days. However, it is also our responsibility to take precautions when the discourse begins to impact our school climate and interrupt school operations. Logan told reporters that wearing the hat at school is his First Amendment right. However, the right to free speech is interpreted (by courts and others) somewhat differently in public schools than outside them. The National Coalition Against Censorship has a rundown of how the First Amendment is interpreted within the classroom: Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the right to free speech and expression can sometimes be subordinated to achieve legitimate educational goals. (See discussions of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District v. Fraser.) A school is not comparable to a public park where anyone can stand on a soapbox, or a bulletin board on which anyone can post a notice. While students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines), speech is not quite as free inside educational institutions as outside. This does not mean that students and teachers have no First Amendment rights at school. Quite the contrary. But within the educational setting, the right to free speech is implemented in ways that do not interfere with schools’ educational mission. Students cannot claim, for instance, that they have the right to have incorrect answers to an algebra quiz accepted as correct, nor can teachers claim a right to teach anything they choose. Other quotes from Logan present a fuller picture of the third-grader’s political views: He already has the shirt and tie down, and practices speeches about Trump on the playground. “I’ve told them his policies on illegal immigration, and our second amendment, and our first amendment and all of our amendments that need to be protected which are not going to be an amendment at all if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets elected,” said Autry.
Example Output: An elementary school in Fresno, California, forced a third-grader to remove a cap bearing Donald Trump's campaign slogan.

Example Input: The department cited a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing that the number of people across the U.S. being infected by diseases from mosquitoes, ticks and fleas has tripled from 2004 to 2016. Reported cases have increased in Illinois by 58 percent in that same time period. Ticks and mosquitoes can carry diseases causing mild to severe illness, and even death in some cases. The most common mosquito-borne illness in the state is West Nile virus, which can cause paralysis or death in severe cases. The department recommends people use insect repellent containing DEET to repel the insects.
Example Output:
Illinois illnesses from insect bites increased by 58 percent.