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.

Q: "Although the story mentions the cost of immunosuppressant drugs, the story does not mention the cost of the new transplant technique. Given the preliminary nature of the findings, it is not yet possible to quantify the benefits of the new transplantation technique. The story does not mention any potential harms of the therapy. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence. The story describes the studies as ""preliminary"" and brings attention to the very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as ""groundbreaking"" and ""breakthrough"" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of kidney disease. The story quotes multiple experts The story mentions immunosuppressants with traditional transplantation as the alternative to the new transplant technique. The story clearly states that the transplant technique is experimental and is only being performed in a handful of medical centers. The story clearly states that the treatment is a new approach. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."

A: Some transplant patients OK without years of drug treatment
****
Q: "In a September 2011 floor speech, Democratic U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin spoke of two concerns he said are growing in the Lone Star State: poverty and hunger. Doggett said that in tough times, more families are turning to food banks, creating ""immense"" demand. Among his examples: The Austin-based Capital Area Food Bank of Texas ""this year is delivering 50 percent more food to poor people than it did three years ago."" In his speech, Doggett attributed that figure to John Turner, a food bank official. We wondered if the proclaimed increase was correct, and if so, whether that accurately reflected a surge in hunger in our area. The food bank, founded in 1981, takes in donations of food and money from the government, the food industry and the public, then distributes food to Central Texas residents directly and through more than 350 agencies in its 21-county service area roughly centered on Travis and Williamson counties. (Click to view a map.) The region’s north edge runs from Mills County in the west to Freestone County in the east; its south edge runs from Gillespie and Blanco counties in the west to Fayette County on the east. Doggett spokeswoman Sarah Dohl told us by email that Doggett drew his 50 percent figure from a Sept. 4, 2011, news story in the Guardian, a British newspaper, which quotes Turner saying the food bank was delivering 50 percent more food to the poor than it had done three years ago. In an interview, Turner, the food bank’s senior director for marketing and branding, recently told us he’d given the Guardian a conservative estimate: The pounds of food distributed by the bank had actually increased 64 percent, going from 15.4 million pounds in 2007 to 25.3 million pounds in 2010. Turner noted, too, that the 2010 poundage was inflated by one-time federal stimulus aid enabling the bank to buy an additional 2.3 million pounds for the Summer Food Nutrition Program. Subtract that, and the 2010 figure becomes 23 million pounds -- up 49 percent from what the bank gave out in 2007. So, do the poundage figures mean hunger in the area shot up 49 percent or more over the past few years? J.C. Dwyer of the Texas Food Bank Network, the state association of food banks, told us pounds of food distributed generally isn't the best measure of need in a food bank's region: ""It’s more of a metric for how we’re dealing with the needs,"" Dwyer said. A better way of gauging needs, he said, is to track the number of residents requesting food assistance. That is, the amount of food distributed doesn't necessarily reflect ups and downs in need. In the holiday season, donations and distributions surge, for instance, but that doesn’t necessarily mean surges in need. Dwyer and Turner each suggested we check on changes in food demands through ""Hunger in America,"" a report commissioned every four years by Feeding America, a national charity that acts as a clearinghouse connecting food supplies to 200 food banks, including the one in Austin. There was no ""Hunger in America"" report for 2007, the first year in Doggett’s statement, but the reports based on surveys in 2005 and 2009 were broken down into smaller reports covering the Austin bank’s 21-county region: In 2005, the Capital Area bank fed an estimated 174,900 people. In 2009, the estimated number of people served was 284,900 for the year, up 63 percent from those who were served in 2005. That change outstripped population growth, according to U.S. census estimates. In 2005, the 21 counties had 2,265,981 residents. By 2009, the region’s population was 2,547,559 -- up 12.4 percent. Put another way, the food bank provided sustenance to nearly 8 percent of the region’s residents in 2005 while about 11 percent of a greater total of residents got food in 2009. Finally, we wondered if Doggett was correct in saying the food aid went to the poor alone. Turner told us the bank does not question people who come seeking food as to their income -- if you show up, you are fed, he said, though depending on the lines that form, it could take an hour or two. However, the ""Hunger in America"" report using 2009 data states that 73 percent of the Capital Area food bank’s clients had incomes below the federal poverty level. Census figures for 2010, drawing on 2009 data, show that poverty in the 21-county region matched the percentage for Texas overall: Seventeen percent of residents had income below the federal poverty level. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, Dwyer told us, ""food insecurity"" across Texas -- the percentage of households at risk of missing meals because of financial pressure -- rose from 14.8 percent in the three-year period 2005-07 to 18.8 percent in 2008-10. Our conclusion: Changes in the amount of food distributed over several years, which Doggett cited, might not be the best way to gauge changes in residents’ needs. That said, the number of Central Texas requestors for food aid over those years outpaced regional population growth. The 63 percent increase in requestors also exceeded the 50-percent increase in food distributed that he stressed, though, contrary to his statement, not all those pounds of food went to ""the poor."""

A: Lloyd Doggett Says the main Central Texas food bank is delivering 50 percent more food to the poor than three years ago.
****
Q: "There was no discussion of costs and we always think there should be – even if inconsequential. Overall, we would have wished for more specificity on the data that was reported. There were glimpses of specifity, as when the story reported: ""The latest study does suggest that some subgroups of women might benefit from fish-oil supplements. For instance, those with a history of clinical depression—and thus are at higher risk of post-partum depression—who took 800 milligrams of fish oil daily lowered their risk of getting depressed after the birth by about 4% compared with those who didn’t take fish oil. However, the difference wasn’t statistically significant because of the small number of women in the study who had been previously depressed, said Dr. Makrides, who is also a professor of human nutrition at the University of Adelaide."" But we were disappointed that the story didn’t disclose how much preterm birth risk was reduced – an issue of vital concern to many readers. A preemie and an induction (covered as a harm but also without any numbers provided) aren’t necessarily equal. On balance, we just didn’t get enough data on benefits. There was no broad discussion of safety or side effects. But one issue was raised that was not in the NYT story: ""Women in the fish-oil group had lower rates of pre-term births, particularly births earlier than 34 weeks of gestation. But, there was a trade-off: More women who took the supplement needed their labor to be induced or had caesarean sections because the babies stayed in the womb longer, said Dr. Makrides."" Because it at least nodded in the direction of a specific potential harm issue, this story gets a satisfactory score on this criterion. Satisfactory job and in little ways superior to the NYT story we reviewed on the same study. For example, the language in this story was much more clear and helpful: ""Several previous studies have shown that eating fish during pregnancy helped in the baby’s brain development and in reducing the risk of post-partum depression. That research, however, typically didn’t involve randomized, controlled studies. Instead, women were asked whether or not they chose to eat fish during pregnancy. It could be the case that eating fish is better than taking fish-oil supplements or that women who opt to eat fish are generally healthier and engage in other health-promoting behaviors, Dr. Oken said. The few trials conducted that separated participants, into a group taking fish-oil supplements and another that didn’t, weren’t well done, because the women often knew if they were getting the supplement, and in some cases there wasn’t a comparison group at all, she said."" There was no disease-mongering in this story. Barely adequate – in that the story at least cited the views of an editorial writer in addition to those of one of the study authors. Again, barely adequate in that the story at least discussed a bit about both DHA supplements and fish consumption – but wrapped this into broader healthy alternatives such as ""all pregnant women should strive for balance and eat a variety of foods, including fish."" The story makes it clear that fish oil is widely available and has been widely used for the described uses. However, it would have been helpful for readers/consumers if the story had discussed the challenge of assessing product purity, quality control, etc. – that it’s not just a simple matter of ""just take fish oil."" Past research on this topic is covered quite clearly. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release."

A:
Fish Oil Study Finds Little Benefit for Pregnant Women
****