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: """We're No. 23"" may not sound like a stirring claim, but Gov. John Kasich has been using one version of it to lead cheers for Ohio. ""We jumped 11 spaces since beginning this year in terms of being job-friendly,"" he said in an interview July 12, 2011, with former Fox News colleague Sean Hannity, crediting the improvement to ""probably the most massive comprehensive piece of legislation passed in modern times in Ohio."" He was referring to the recently passed state budget, which he signed into law June 30. He cited more accomplishments and some sources of information when he repeated the claim the next day with former House colleague Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC: ""My state was dying. It is my job to get us out of this. We jumped, according to CNBC, 11 places since I've become governor as business friendly in America."" And Kasich got a third chance to tout Ohio July 17, 2001, on NBC's ""Meet the Press,"" telling host David Gregory: ""Ohio was dying, and we are beginning to really become business-friendly. ... In Ohio, because we faced our $8 billion budget deficit and provide tax relief, what's happened? CNBC says we've jumped 11 points, 11 places in terms of business-friendly."" PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look at the claim. The governor’s office confirmed he was talking about CNBC's annual rating of ""America's top states for business,"" which the business channel released in June. Ohio ranked 23rd. That is, in fact, an advance of 11 spots from last year’s list, which made Ohio the most improved state (followed by Florida and Pennsylvania). CNBC said its study used input from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness to rank states in 10 categories: cost of doing business; workforce; quality of life; economy; transportation and infrastructure; technology and innovation; education; business friendliness; access to capital, and cost of living. Ohio's biggest improvement came in the ""cost of doing business"" category, based on tax burden, including individual income and property taxes, and business taxes, particularly as they apply to new investments. Utilities, wages and rental space were also figured. That specific improvement was hailed by the Ohio Business Development Coalition, which said, ""Ohio improved to 5th place from 29th place last year due to a multi-year effort to reform the state's tax structure, which took full effect in 2010."" In April, the coalition noted, a report from Ernst & Young with the Council On State Taxation ranked Ohio as having the third friendliest tax environment in the nation. Those tax reforms came before Kasich's watch, however; they started two administrations ago, under Republican Gov. Bob Taft and a GOP-controlled legislature in 2005. Kasich can claim some credit in the category of economy, where the study measured each state’s fiscal health by looking at projected budget gaps or surpluses for the coming fiscal year. Ohio moved up 10 spots to 24th. We think it's fair to allow the governor some license for salesmanship, but we don't think it's splitting hairs to note that the CNBC study did not give Ohio high marks for being ""job friendly"" or ""business friendly"" as he stated. His underlying meaning is that Ohio’s business climate has improved, and his wording is similar to the name of the study, ""America’s top states for business."" But Ohio did not fare as well in some of the study’s 10 categories as it did overall. One category specifically graded states ""on the perceived 'friendliness' of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business."" Ohio ranked 42nd in it. The state was dead last in the ""workforce"" category. CNBC says states were rated ""on the education level of their workforce, as well as the numbers of available workers. We also considered union membership. While organized labor contends that a union workforce is a quality workforce, that argument, more often than not, doesn’t resonate with business. We also looked at the relative success of each state’s worker training programs in placing their participants in jobs."" CNBC's list is one of many. Chief Executive magazine annually rates the ""best/worst states for business,"" using input on ""overall business-friendliness"" from 550 CEOs. Ohio this year ranked 41st -- improved two places from last year but down 19 places from 2006, making the state one of the biggest losers over five years (with Illinois, Washington, Maryland and Pennsylvania). The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation ranked Ohio 46th in its state business tax rankings for 2011. But the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, a trade group that represents small businesses and advocates for less government regulation, annually issues a rigorous ""Business Tax Index"" that pulls together 18 different tax measures to rank the states from best to worst in terms of the costs of their tax systems on entrepreneurship and small business. The index for 2011, published in April, ranked Ohio 9th. The SBE Council also has a ""Small Business Survival Index"" that evaluates states in 36 categories including  corporate and income taxes, gas and diesel taxes, government spending, health care and energy costs, inheritance taxes, and workers compensation costs. The latest, released in December, rated Ohio 9th in the nation, up from 11th a year earlier. So where does that leave the governor’s claim? He was correct that Ohio jumped 11 places in a study from CNBC, although he misstated the name of the study. The state didn’t fare as well in some catagories of that study, including one that specifically looked at perceived friendliness to business. There also are several other rankings for business climate and tax burdens out there. In some of those, Ohio has shown improvement. Others, however, still have the state low in their rankings. And some of the tax changes that boosted the state were put in place by previous administrations. Kasich was trying to show progress in Ohio, selling both the state and his stewardship. In his claim, he was citing only one study. On that study his statement was accurate, but these other points help clarify the picture. On the Truth-O-Meter, that gets a rating of ."
Example Output: We jumped 11 places since beginning this year in terms of being job-friendly.

Example Input: "We don’t know yet if the Ebola scare will help either party or be an afterthought in the midterm elections, but liberal blogger Doug Muder argued that confronting Ebola shows that it makes sense to vote Democratic. For Muder, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is the poster child for a distinct partisan contrast. ""Ebola points out why we need a fully funded government,"" Muder wrote. ""When there’s no immediate threat of disease, government agencies like the CDC look like bureaucratic waste. When Rand Paul put out a ‘Tea Party budget’ in 2011, it included a big cut in the CDC, and virtually no explanation as to how this would affect its mission."" In this fact-check, we look at whether Paul proposed a ""big cut"" in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Muder had blogged about Paul’s budget in 2011. Back then, Muder asked how the CDC would be able to fulfill its mission if, as Paul wanted, its budget was cut by $1.165 billion. We went back to Paul’s original budget documents. One posted January 2011 called for the $1.165 billion reduction that Muder mentioned. Paul then assembled a more complete budget plan in May 2011. It would cut the CDC budget by 20 percent from its Fiscal Year 2008 levels. Depending on whether you include special funds to evaluate federal health programs, Congress appropriated between $6.049 billion and $6.375 billion for the CDC in FY 2008. So Rand’s 20 percent reduction amounts to either $1.209 billion or $1.275 billion in cuts. That’s slightly more than Muder described. Paul wrote in his plan, ""The center is often mentioned in media reports highlighting their lavish accommodations. For example, in 2005, the CDC built a conference center for $106 million, complete with large-screen plasma TVs. They also spent tens of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art anti-gravity seating for employees, as well as luxury furniture. Taxpayers can no longer afford the luxury working atmosphere of the CDC."" That budget plan remains posted on the website randpaul2016.com, Paul's Senate re-election website. Brian Darling, a Paul spokesman, agreed that the senator has proposed these cuts in the past, but said that funding and the ability to fight Ebola don’t inevitably go hand-in-hand. ""If you look closely at the CDC budget, there are funds that have been wasted on projects that have nothing to do with disease prevention,"" Darling said. Darling then noted that Congress has been at least as supportive of the CDC as the Obama administration. Darling said that in an omnibus spending bill, Congress appropriated $6.9 billion for the CDC, about $240 million more than the administration requested. Darling highlighted another $88 million for Ebola in a continuing resolution bill approved in September. However, neither action undercuts Muder’s point, and Paul voted against both measures. It’s important to remember that those bills doled out money across many government agencies, not specifically for the CDC alone. Sometimes reasonable people can quibble over whether a cut is ""big"" or not. In this case, Paul himself called his cuts ""serious"" in a 2011 op-ed he penned for the Wall Street Journal. ""My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity,"" Paul wrote. ""But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt."" Our ruling Muder said that in 2011 Sen. Paul proposed cutting the CDC budget by $1.165 billion. Budget documents confirm that. In fact, Paul’s most detailed budget that year would have trimmed CDC spending by slightly more, about $1.2 billion. While the Senate approved two broad spending measures to fund the CDC in 2014, Paul voted against both."
Example Output: "Doug Muder Says Sen. Rand Paul’s 2011 budget ""included a big cut in the CDC."

Example Input: There is no mention of the costs of Victoza. This would have been easy to include given the drug is widely prescribed and pricing information is freely available on the internet. The article compares the performance of Victoza against rival diabetes drugs, so it would have been informative to have a comparison of costs as well. The story’s key figure, which features in the headline, is a 13% reduction in the risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death. Unfortunately this figure only measures the relative risk reduction; i.e. the change in risk for patients who got Victoza as a percentage of the actual risk of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular death for patients who didn’t get Victoza. However, the story does also give actual risk figures for the treatment and placebo group (13.0% vs. 14.9%). This allows a keen eyed reader to calculate the absolute risk reduction: a less impressive sounding 1.9%. Because of this, the story rates Satisfactory on this criterion. It’s worth nothing the news release didn’t include the placebo group reductions. The story does a good job of mentioning the side effects of Victoza, even pointing towards whether effects were statistically significant. One omission was that the story did not mention the higher incidence of gallstone disease, a side effect that was highlighted as significant in the paper. Although the strength of the evidence is not directly interrogated, the story provides sufficient details about the study, such as trial size, length of trial, and where it was published. Type II diabetes is a major public health problem and, as the story mentions, patients frequently die of heart disease. No disease-mongering here. No third-party scientist is quoted, although the views of one industry analyst are paraphrased. It’s not clear, however, if this analyst was actually interviewed for the story, and his comments pertain only to the market’s expectations for the drug. We didn’t think this was substantive enough to rate as Satisfactory. The story does mention that Novo Nordisk funded the study and the focus is squarely on the pharmaceutical industry, making the company’s role clear to the reader. How Victoza performs in reducing severe cardiovascular events compared to rival drugs is mentioned numerous times. It is worth noting that there was no mention that the drug is given by injection. For individuals with diabetes reading the article, this oversight is important in that it may make them more inclined to oral medicines that are easier to take. The story makes it clear that the drug is already established on the market, calling it “top-selling” in the first line and mentioning that it is typically prescribed as a third or fourth option. The story makes clear that the purpose of this study was to meet FDA requirements. “Since 2008, U.S. regulators have demanded studies for new diabetes medicines to show there is no increase in heart risk, opening a new battleground between different treatments,” it says. The story is not based solely on Novo Nordisk’s news release. As mentioned, some of the relative risk figures which the story leans on, as well as two sources who are quoted, are found in the news release. But the writer clearly conducted independent interviews and sourced information elsewhere.
Example Output:
Novo diabetes drug cuts heart risks by less-than-hoped 13 percentage