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.

[EX Q]: Business by its very nature is cut-throat; competitors rarely aid one another because one company’s success almost invariably comes at the expense of the other’s vitality. When such leg-ups occur, they are often inadvertent — the result of one firm’s having failed to take advantage of an opportunity that its competitor later cleaned up on. Such was the case when Mars, Inc. passed on the chance for its flagship product, M&Ms, to be the candy used in 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Its turn-down cleared the way for Hershey Foods Corporation to make a remarkable splash for its Reese’s Pieces. During production of E.T., Amblin Productions approached Mars, Inc. about a possible tie-in between M&Ms and the film. For whatever reason, Mars said “No” to the proposition. Many purported reasons for that negative response have been provided by a variety of sources: Mars decided it didn’t want its bite-size candy associated with an extraterrestrial living with an earth family, or it thought the film’s premise just a bit too otherworldly, or an unnamed M&M executive decided nobody would want to see a movie about an alien adopted by a lonely kid. (M&Ms did survive as the candy used in the 1982 William Kotzwinkle novelization of the film, however.) Lore adds its own details to flesh out stories, details that will cast the one who is perceived as having done something foolish in as absurd a light as possible. When that story is one of a poor business decision made by a large corporation, someone telling the tale is sure to state as rock-solid fact an explanation that is now clearly laughable. No one ever suggests that Mars might have already had its advertising budget locked for that year, or that it might have felt ill at ease at the prospect of dealing with a new advertising medium and the new people who went with it, or any other plausible and purely logical business reason for taking a pass on this offer. No, the “reason” offered in lore will always be something along the lines of “Mars didn’t think much of the planned movie and thus wanted to keep themselves separate from it,” a “reason” that casts the candymaker as unbelievably short-sighted given the breathtaking success of E.T. Whatever the reason for it, Mars’ “No” paved the way for Hershey’s “Yes.” The spurned offer was then tendered to Hershey, and — misgivings aside — that corporation went for it. Hershey did not pay to have Reese’s Pieces used in E.T., but it did agree to do a tie-in between the movie and the candy after the film was released. A deal was inked wherein Hershey Foods agreed to promote E.T. with $1 million of advertising; in return, Hershey could use E.T. in its own ads. Within two weeks of the movie’s premiere, Reese’s Pieces sales went through the roof. (Disagreement exists as to how far through the roof they went: Sales were variously described as having tripled, experienced an 85% jump, or increased by 65%). Whatever the numbers, though, Reese’s Pieces — up until then an underdog confection only faintly known by the U.S. candy-consuming public — were suddenly being consumed in great handfuls. And all thanks to a shy little alien lured from the bushes and into America’s hearts by a trail of peanut-butter-in-a-candy-coated-shell confections. Thus is the potential power of product placement. When it’s done right, it can make a product. Paid product placement in films has come to be one of the ordinary ways of things in Hollywood. Exxon paid $300,000 for its name to appear in Days of Thunder, Pampers paid $50,000 to be featured in Three Men and a Baby, and Cuervo Gold spent $150,000 for placement in Tequila Sunrise, according to Danny Thompson, president of Creative Entertainment Services, in a 1993 New York magazine interview. As for how effective the practice of product placement is, that same article quotes Joel Henrie, a partner at Motion Picture Placement, as saying: “Look what happened to Hermes scarves after Basic Instinct, Ray-Ban sunglasses after Risky Business, and suspenders after Michael Douglas wore them in Wall Street.” Not all product placement deals are “straight-fee” arrangements. There are actually three types of deals, the other two being the provision of costly merchandise (such as automobiles or appliances) for free just for the exposure (which accounts for about half of all placements), and the back-end promotion under which big corporations with huge promotional budgets aim for young audiences through tie-ins with popular films. In most films, product placement, while noticeable, is kept low-key. However, some Hollywood offerings have gone down in the annals of motion picture history as notorious examples of rampant commercialism. The 1988 snoozer Mac and Me could fairly be described as a ninety-minute advert for McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, with an alien thrown in whenever things were running slow. Likewise, the 1987 film Leonard Part 6 was deemed by many to be a never-ending Coca-Cola commercial. But rampant product placement is not merely limited to forgettable films which did poorly at the box office, as 1999’s Runaway Bride proved. (In that film, everyone walks around with a copy of USA Today in his hands.) Product placement in movies is now a corporate fact of life, as are “bonehead” accounts of great marketing opportunities left to the other guy. One company’s gaffe becomes the cautionary tale passed along to those in all manner of industries because the message is universal: This could be us one day if we don’t maintain vigilance. Once again, folklore is called upon to teach by example what might not have effectively been learned from a book. In an odd way, true-life corporate instances of one man’s garbage turning out to be another man’s treasure are almost a rip on the standard Hollywood legend of (pick your favorite movie star) was offered the lead in (now unforgettable, hugely-popular film) but turned it down. Though that scenario has indeed played out a number of times in Tinseltown, it hasn’t happened nearly as often as is reported. In many cases, remembered tidbits of so-and-so’s having been mentioned merely in passing at a studio round-table of “Who could we get?” are mentally embroidered into memories of the role’s having been offered to the star, who waved it away. Or a bit of rumor is later remembered as fact, such as the case of Ronald Reagan, whose name was only kited as part of a press release designed to drum up interest in Casablanca  but is now widely believed to have been the studio’s first choice to play Rick Blaine — a role never intended for anyone but Humphrey Bogart.
[EX A]: M&Ms passed up the chance to be the candy used to lure the shy little alien from his hiding place in the 1982 blockbuster E.T., thereby letting one of the most successful instances of movie product placement fall into the hands of a competitor who benefited mightily from it.

[EX Q]: Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines are for the most part in an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to see better coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotine vaccine in a study. And later, the story says that smokers who received that vaccine were “about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo.” The story should have provided the absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere, the story describes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported on phase II human data that is available for the TA-CD anticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patients may benefit from the use of anti-addiction vaccines. The story states that “clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects” from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stage trials involving small numbers of patients that can’t provide conclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions are chronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body’s natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weight to the disappointing results reported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: “Failures have so far outnumbered successes.” The story adds that even in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefits were not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detail on the data published in the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the “Benefits” criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn’t attempting to summarize any particular study, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn’t exaggerate the effects of substance abuse disorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear from academics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments on a particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to hear a comment about the vaccines from someone who is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can’t justify docking points since there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addiction–and notes that the available drugs might work better. We would like to have seen more ink given to the role of behavioral approaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However, the story does acknowledge that vaccines “would likely be used alongside psychological therapy.” We’ll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that “It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market.” The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could have provided more background on the history of anti-addiction vaccines (a heroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different from anything currently available. So we don’t think this story overstates the novelty of the research. This story is not based on a news release.
[EX A]: Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction

[EX Q]: The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it would add new warnings to packaging for Neurontin, Lyrica and generic versions, which are used to treat seizures, nerve pain, restless leg syndrome and other conditions. The new labels will warn doctors against prescribing the drugs with other medications that can slow breathing, including opioid painkillers. The breathing risks also apply to elderly patients and those with existing lung problems. The medications, known generically as gabapentin and pregabalin, are among the most prescribed in the U.S. Both physician prescribing and misuse have increased as doctors, hospitals and other health care providers have scaled back their use of opioids amid a national epidemic. Poison control centers have reported increased calls involving the nerve drugs, which are often abused in combination with opioids, cocaine and marijuana. Neurontin and related generics have long been considered nonaddictive and are not tracked as closely by regulators. While the nerve drugs are not FDA-approved for conventional muscle and joint pain, doctors frequently prescribe them for those uses and others, including treatment of migraines and psychiatric conditions. The FDA also said it will require drugmakers to conduct new studies of the abuse risks of the drugs, especially in combination with opioids. The agency said it received nearly 50 reports of breathing problems linked to gabapentin and pregabalin between 2012 and 2017, including 12 deaths. While drugmakers are required to report problems to the FDA, it’s voluntary for doctors and patients. ___  Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter ___  The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support  from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
[EX A]:
FDA warns of breathing risks with popular nerve drugs.