TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: "The story provides the cost of the CT scan as well as angiography. However, the story should have discussed insurance coverage for the scans. The story describes the percentage of patients with blockages that were identified with either the CT scan or the angiogram. The story should have also described the probability of having blockages with a positive scan (positive predictive value). This is the more important piece of information to a consumer. Also not described in the story is whether the CT scans had any impact at all on downstream outcomes, such as heart attacks, deaths, or procedures. The story correctly describes radiation exposure as one of the harms of the heart CT. The story could have described other harms, such as the implications of false positive or false negative test results. The story adequately describes the design of the current study, including a criticism from one expert that the study ""cherry-picked"" patients to include in the study in order to maximize the findings. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. However, the story could have been more clear about who the CT scans are intended for. The study in question was in those with suspected heart disease, not the assymptomatic or ""worried well"". The use of CT scans in the larger asymptomatic population is controversial. The story quotes multiple independent experts who provide valuable commentary on the implications of the new findings. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to the heart CT. The story clearly states that the CT scans are relatively new and available in many hospitals, however it is not clear how many hospitals have purchased these machines. The story adequately describes the novelty of the scans. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."

SOLUTION: ‘Super X-rays’ show promise for finding heart disease but produce high radiation dose

PROBLEM: Karen Sage of Austin, facing a Tuesday runoff with Mindy Montford of Austin for the Democratic nod for a judgeship, touts her experience as a prosecutor overseeing a new unit focused on defendants with mental illness. With no Republican opponent in November, the winner of the runoff will likely be a shoo-in for Travis County’s 299th state District Court judgeship. In a mailer sent to voters April 3, Sage celebrates the new program, saying that jail “time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent.”We wondered if Sage’s statement—echoed in a TV ad she debuted Wednesday—reflects reality. Sage’s campaign initially referred us to Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County district attorney. Lehmberg confirmed that she asked Sage, an assistant district attorney, to helm the felony mental health unit, which was started in January 2009. Claire Dawson-Brown, the DA’s director of strategic prosecutions, said a magistrate started handling a special docket comprised of “mental health” defendants in late April 2009. To be in the program, Dawson-Brown said, defendants must usually be charged with a non-violent crime. They also must be diagnosed with major depression or considered bipolar, schizo-affective or schizophrenic, and seen as unstable in the jail. “It would be someone in a crisis situation,” she said, “or their mental illness is impairing their behavior.” Experts team to address the needs of the mental health inmates, Dawson-Brown said. She said participants get services they need in custody and when they return to the community. Besides Sage, who has a paralegal and a secretary, each defendant has an attorney familiar with mental health issues; she said the magistrate, a jail counselor and officials serving the local mental health and adult probation systems also play roles, with social workers sometimes getting involved. And how has the program affected jail stays? Sage said she reached her 50-percent reduction statement by comparing a baseline estimate that “mental health” inmates facing felony charges were averaging 106 days in jail before the program began to the 42-day average for participants in the program at the time she left the office in mid-December to run for judge. The decrease amounts to 60 percent. Dawson-Brown agreed that as of late 2008 and early 2009, the average Travis County jail stay for all its “mental health” defendants, including violent offenders, was 106 days. We pointed out that the baseline figure sweeps in the longer jail stays of individuals charged with violent crimes who aren’t automatically put in the new program, driving up the pre-program average and potentially skewing before and after comparisons. Dawson-Brown then gave us more detailed jail-stay information enabling an improved review of the change in average jail stays. Based on the new figures, we estimate that defendants who have been through the new program would have averaged 77 days in jail before the program began. The nitty gritty: We multiplied the number of affected defendants categorized by the level of felony they faced--ranging from first-degree felony charges to second- and third-degree felonies to state-jail felony charges--by the days that similarly charged defendants averaged in jail before the program began. Next, we totaled those defendant-days-in-jail and divided the total (19,432) by the number of defendants (253) to reach the pre-program estimate of an average of 77 days in jail. Through February, the magistrate had processed 253 defendants since the program’s start, according to Dawson-Brown, and they averaged 36 days in jail. Best we can tell, the average jail stay for defendants dropped by 41 days, or 53 percent.

SOLUTION: "Karen Sage Says that under a new program jail ""time for non-violent, mentally ill offenders has been reduced by 50 percent."

PROBLEM: The decision by Dewayne Johnson, who sued Monsanto in 2016, brings the total award to $78 million, down from the jury’s verdict on Aug. 10 of $289 million - $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages. Johnson’s law firm said in a statement that he accepted the reduction “to hopefully achieve a final resolution within his lifetime.”   Judge Suzanne Bolanos of San Francisco’s Superior Court of California, who oversaw the trial, earlier this month affirmed the liability portion of the verdict, but ordered punitive damages to be slashed to concur with California and federal law. Bayer denies allegations that glyphosate can cause cancer and said it will appeal the decision as the verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The verdict, which marked the first such decision against Monsanto, wiped 10 percent off the value of the company and shares have since dropped nearly 30 percent from their pre-verdict value. The company, which faces more than 8,700 U.S. lawsuits over glyphosate, says decades of scientific studies and real-world use have shown glyphosate to be safe for human use. Regulators around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have found glyphosate was not a likely carcinogen to humans and approved the chemical, but the cancer unit of the World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”  The jury found the company’s glyphosate-containing RoundUp and Ranger Pro products responsible for causing Johnson’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and said the company had failed to warn him and other consumers of the risks. Johnson could decide whether to accept the reduction or face a new trial on the punitive damages portion. His lawyers on Wednesday said they would challenge the amount of damages during Bayer’s appeal.

SOLUTION:
Groundskeeper in Bayer in U.S. weed-killer case accepts reduced award.