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'.

[Q]: Paragraph: "An Instagram post making a political point about abortion in the United States muffs the landing by claiming that no one has died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. ""Death toll in America,"" the March 1 post says. ""Coronavirus 0, abortion 63,000,000."" This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Though any count of abortions in the United States can’t be precise, the abortion number seems to be a reasonable estimate. (Read our 2012 fact-check for details.) But for COVID-19, the post is simply wrong. As of March 3, there have been nine deaths from COVID-19 in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported six deaths on their website while the Seattle Times reported three more deaths that afternoon. The victims were all in Washington state. Of course, the Instagram post was published on March 1. But the first death was reported on Feb. 29. Officials announced four more deaths on March 2." Claim: Instagram posts Says no one has died from the coronavirus in the United States.
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "A hurricane with winds in excess of 180 miles per hour is scary enough. But some corners of the Internet are stirring additional panic -- and attracting additional clicks -- by referring to an extreme hurricane category that doesn’t even exist. The web post appeared as Hurricane Irma was powering through the Caribbean, days ahead of an expected landfall somewhere in Florida. The storm was one of the most powerful to form in the Atlantic Ocean in decades, with sustained winds as high as 185 miles per hour. Into this maelstrom came a website posing as an arm of CNN (spoiler, it’s not) posting a page headlined, ""HURRICANE IRMA could be a Category 6 by the time it hits East Coast."" The advertising-filled page has almost no content of its own -- just an audio recording of a folksy, older-sounding woman rambling, stream-of-consciousness style, about the approach of Irma. At one point, she says, ""The wind speeds are way up there into the category 6 territory."" A flurry of other questionable websites also played with the idea of Irma becoming a Category 6 storm. There is no such thing. The scale used by the National Hurricane Center only goes as high as 5. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale was developed by Herbert Saffir, an engineer in Coral Gables, Fla., and Robert Simpson, who headed the National Hurricane Center from 1967 to 1973. The scale used wind speeds as a guide to predict the extent of structural damage. ""Saffir, an engineer and expert on wind damage who helped write the Dade County, Fla., building code, developed the first version of the scale in 1971 for a United Nations report on construction that could stand up to high winds,"" wrote Jack Williams the founding weather editor of USA Today and co-author of Hurricane Watch: Forecasting the Deadliest Storms on Earth. As for Simpson, Williams wrote, one of his formative experiences at the National Hurricane Center came with the approach of Hurricane Camille to the Mississippi coast on Aug. 16, 1969. The storm was shaping up to be extremely dangerous, but Simpson grappled with the best way to communicate this to residents in the storm’s path. ""Simpson broke the Weather Bureau's rule against using specific wind speed or surge figures in forecasts -- they were supposed to say things such as ‘strong winds and dangerously high water are expected,’ "" Williams wrote. ""After it was all over, despite the success of the evacuations, Simpson felt he needed a better way to communicate what a storm is capable of doing. He correlated Saffir's wind damage rankings with the surge potential to create the scale used today."" While officials at the National Hurricane Center began using Simpson’s new scale internally, it only began releasing it to the public in 1975, amid clamor by the media for an easily understandable metric. Officially, the Saffir-Simpson scale is based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed. ""Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes because of their potential for significant loss of life and damage,"" according to the National Hurricane Center. ""Category 1 and 2 storms are still dangerous, however, and require preventative measures."" The now-familiar scale of 1 to 5 breaks down as follows: Category Sustained winds (mph) Types of damage 1 74-95 Very dangerous winds will produce some damage 2 96-110 Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage 3 111-129 Devastating damage will occur 4 130-156 Catastrophic damage will occur 5 157+ Catastrophic damage will occur The scale has changed in one significant way over the years. In 2010, the federal agency removed references to storm surge from the scale after some surge expectations proved to be off-base. (Storm surge refers to how far open waters reach beyond their normal levels on coastal land.) Instead, the center directs people to more specific forecasts about storm surge. Unlike the Fujita scale for tornadoes, which runs from 0 to 5, the Saffir-Simpson scale uses measurements taken before a storm hits land. The Fujita ratings are assigned after a storm has hit and the damage is investigated. From time to time, there has been discussion of whether a new category -- Category 6 -- should be added to the scale. That decision would likely fall to the National Hurricane Center after discussions with scientists in the field, said Jill Trepanier, a hurricane specialist in the Louisiana State University department of geography and anthropology. A simple extrapolation from the existing categories would probably set the threshold for a new Category 6 around 180 mph, making Irma a good candidate for that category if it existed, said James B. Elsner, the chair of geography at Florida State University who also runs a business called Climatek that develops software for hurricane and tornado risk models. The idea of creating a Category 6 is often met with skepticism, however. The most frequently cited reason is that Category 6 would add nothing to the understanding of how destructive the storm would be for buildings and other structures. ""Almost no structures can withstand sustained winds over 155 mph,"" said Michael M. Bell, an associate professor in atmospheric science at Colorado State University. ""At those wind speeds, significant damage or even total destruction of most buildings is expected. By this definition, adding a Category 6 would not add any new information, since the strongest criteria for expected wind damage has already been met."" Bill Read, the former director of the National Hurricane Center, agreed in an email with PolitiFact. And the scale’s co-creator, Simpson, agreed as well, in a 1991 interview. Asked whether the scale should be modified to include categories above 5, he said that above 155 mph, ""it's going to cause rupturing damages (to buildings) that are serious no matter how well it's engineered. … That's the reason why we didn't try to go any higher than that anyway."" In fact, several scientists said that a more useful change, if one had to be made, would be to focus less on wind speed specifically, either by modifying the Saffir-Simpson scale to include other factors or by giving added attention to other measurements. ""I personally believe that we need to work on effectively communicating the other hazards that tropical cyclones bring, including heavy rainfall and storm surge,"" Bell said. Hurricane Harvey, which hit coastal Texas, ""did cause significant wind damage as a Category 4, but much of the devastation in Houston and the surrounding areas was caused by inland flooding from sustained rainfall while Harvey was a tropical storm."" Similarly, ""much of the damage from Hurricane Katrina was caused by storm surge when the winds were Category 3,"" Bell said. ""These multiple hazards may not be well-correlated with the Saffir-Simpson Category at landfall, and therefore it is an incomplete description of the storm's destructive potential."" Trepanier said there’s no reason why a Category 6 is needed to communicate how fearsome Irma is. ""Irma is a beast,"" she said. ""It is safe to say the wind speeds are rare, but I see no benefit in calling it a Category 6. It should be considered catastrophic. And that is how people should refer to it."" So, as of now, there is no such thing as a Category 6 storm. The web post suggesting that Irma is one rates ." Claim: Hurricane Irma could be a Category 6 by the time it hits East Coast.
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: Discussion of costs is relatively unimportant as most individuals would know how much beer costs. The story did quantify the benefits of one parameter by quoting the abstract “incidence of upper respiratory tract infections was 3.25-fold lower” – but it was not mentioned that these were self-reported upper respiratory tract infections. The story mentions that there was ‘significantly less evidence of inflammation….and lower counts of white blood cells than the placebo group” but does not provide numbers. The story also states that the ‘beer experiment’ showed benefits of minimizing post-race damage. But the study didn’t measure damage, it measured blood markers of immune function. In the study, participants consumed 1-1.5 liters/day of non-alcoholic beer (or a placebo) for 5 weeks total. There could be several potential adverse effects such as weight gain from extra calorie consumption, imbalances in nutrients if the liquid replaced other fluids, etc. No potential harms were mentioned. The quality of evidence in the research study was low as it was a non-peer reviewed abstract that was presented at a scientific meeting only, and this is not mentioned. While the treatment (non-alcoholic beer) was compared to a placebo in a double-blinded design, the nature of the placebo is not known, other than that it was a beverage. The research does not mention whether numerous important factors were controlled in the study design (the training regimens of the participants, their diets, their total beverage consumption, etc) and these extensive limitations are not mentioned in the story. No disease mongering. Marathon running was described as “punishing to the body, causing muscle soreness and inflammation.” This is accurate. The story quotes the lead author extensively. Unfortunately, no other independent perspectives are provided. No potential conflicts of interest are noted. The article does not mention potential alternatives that might aid marathon recovery, including any other dietary alterations, and does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages compared with any other approaches. Not applicable. The availability of nonalcoholic beer is not in question. However, it is not clear from the original abstract whether the type of beer matters, as the brand and/or the characteristics (such as calories) were not provided. This is not mentioned in the story. (note: the brand was provided in a press release) The treatment, beer, is not novel, and is not presented as such. Other substances that also contain the purported active ingredient, polyphenols, are discussed. There was an American College of Sports Medicine news release for the abstract, but it doesn’t appear to have been relied upon. Maybe it should have been, since the news release actually includes a disclaimer the story did not include – that the research was presented at a professional meeting but has not been peer-reviewed. Claim: Nonalcoholic Beer Aids Marathon Recovery
[A]:
0