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: "Donald Trump made a grab for blue collar Democrats by citing the anti-trade, anti-Hillary Clinton rhetoric of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. For his latest attack, he borrowed Sanders’ own words. ""As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs,’ "" Trump said in a speech about the economy delivered outside a recycling plant in western Pennsylvania. The presumptive Republican nominee quoted Sanders accurately (barring the Trumpian flourish emphasizing ""millions""). But Sanders’ original claim, which we investigated, wasn’t without faults. Clinton has largely supported free trade, though her position is more nuanced than Trump and Sanders suggest, she  The notion that ""millions, millions of jobs"" have been lost because of trade, however, is more debatable. Clinton’s position on free trade Sanders is consistently anti-free trade, and Trump has been outspoken in disapproval of deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Clinton’s views, however, seem to depend on the content of each agreement. Overall, Trump and Sanders have a point that she’s supported more trade deals than she’s opposed. As first lady, Clinton spoke favorably of the NAFTA, signed by President Bill Clinton. The deal, she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History, ""would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization."" During her 2000 Senate bid to represent New York, Clinton supported normalizing trade relations with China. Out of the 10 trade deals that came up for a vote when she was in the Senate, Clinton said yes to six, no to two, and skipped the votes on two (though she had given her vocal support). She also voted for legislation that included an amendment granting Vietnam normalized trade status. She was in favor of a deal with Jordan because of its ""internationally recognized enforceable labor standards,"" she explained in 2005, but she considered the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement ""a step backward."" As a presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton had varying opinions on several trade deals, and she changed her position on NAFTA. She called NAFTA ""a mistake"" and opposed pending deals with South Korea (out of concern for American carmakers), Colombia (because of labor rights abuses) and Panama (whose National Assembly president was a U.S. fugitive). She reiterated her support for free trade with Peru on the campaign trail, praising the country for its ""very strong labor and environmental protections."" As secretary of state in the pro-trade administration of President Barack Obama, Clinton walked back her opposition to three deals from her 2008 run and helped negotiate them. As a presidential candidate in 2016, she flip-flopped on her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Year Trade deal Clinton’s position 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement Supported in 1990s, against in 2007 2002 Trade Act of 2002* Voted against** 2003 Chile-United States Voted for 2003 Singapore-United States Voted for 2004 Australia-United States Voted for 2004 Morocco-United States Voted for 2005 Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement Voted against 2005 Bahrain-United States Voted for*** 2006 Oman-United States Voted for 2007 Peru-United States Didn’t vote, supported in 2007 2007 Jordan-United States Didn’t vote, supported in 2005 2011 Panama-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2011 Colombia-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2011 South Korea-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2015 Trans-Pacific Partnership Supported in 2010, against in 2015 * This deal is not included in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s list of free trade agreements, but contains many free trade provisions. ** This is a vote for ""fast track authority"" — allowing trade agreement to move through Congress without amendments or filibusters. *** The free trade agreement with Bahrain passed by unanimous consent, not a recorded roll call vote. Employment impact unclear The jury is still out on the impact of trade deals on employment, even after decades of debate. On one side, unions and some left-leaning think tanks often link American job losses to expanded trade. Labor advocates opposed the Chile and Singapore agreements, which they said in a 2003 report would kill an unspecified number of jobs. The liberal Economic Policy Institute, which Trump cited, has found that NAFTA has cost the United States over 800,000 jobs, and the South Korean deal cost about 60,000. In a 2014 report, the think tank reported that the United States has lost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013 to trade with China. Business groups, on the other hand, argue that trade deals actually boost employment. For example, a 2010 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the 14 trade deals in place in 2008 supported 5.4 million jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S-China Business Council and the Financial Times contend that the loss in manufacturing jobs were not due to trade with China so much as gains in technology and productivity, as well as the result of a more sophisticated economy. And in a recent fact-check, we found several nonpartisan reports demonstrating that NAFTA produced no significant job losses nor job gains. Analysis by economists at Tufts University and the University of Michigan projected no net impact on employment from the Chile, Singapore and South Korea deals. Our ruling Trump said, ""As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.’ "" He accurately recasted Sanders’ words, but that doesn’t make the attack any more correct. Out of the 10 trade deals Clinton could have voted on, she voted in favor of six and against two. On two other deals (with Peru and Jordan), she didn’t vote but did vouch for them. As for subsequent job losses, independent research has shown the impact of NAFTA, for example, to not be significant one way or the other for jobs. Trump’s claim is partially accurate and needs additional information." Claim: As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.’ 

A: 1
****
Q: Paragraph: "A supporter of basing student access to bathrooms and locker rooms on gender identity at birth declared that as things stand, Austin's schools teach children to choose their genders. Spicewood attorney Glenna Hodge, testifying before the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee, said parents should recognize that without a protective law, their children can’t count on privacy. Hodge went on: ""We also know that schools in Austin Independent School District are teaching children as young as 4 years old that their gender is fluid–that they’re not a boy or a girl and they can choose whichever gender they want."" Asked for examples of schools doing so, Hodge told the panel in July 2017 that Austin’s Kiker and Odom elementary schools trained teachers with ""Welcoming Schools"" materials devised by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. That campaign says it focuses on achieving equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. In each training, Hodge testified, teachers were told to tell children that gender identity is fluid. We asked Hodge how she reached her conclusion about what students are taught. By phone, she said 24 of the Austin district’s 85 elementary schools undertook the training, which she described as clearing the way for students to be taught gender-fluid lessons. ""What are the teachers supposed to do with the training? What’s the point if not to affirm transgenderism?"" Hodge said. A 2017 web post Hodge pointed us to a January 2017 web post by the Southern Baptist Texan, a religious publication. The post, ""Trojan Horse: Austin ‘anti-bullying’ program pushes progressive views on gender, sexual identity,"" says the Welcoming Students material ""is taught to students as young as 4 years old"" and ""affirms same-sex marriage and parenting, gay and lesbian relationships, and transgenderism."" In one module of the teacher training, the post says, ""teachers are asked to answer questions about their preconceived ideas about gender (i.e. gender bias). The lesson states, ‘By embracing the richness of the gender spectrum, teachers and other adults can help broaden children’s understandings of gender in order to help every child feel seen and recognized.’"" The post goes on: ""By Module 5, children are told they can choose their gender identity even if that identity conflicts with biological reality. Questioning the child’s choice of gender is not an option for teachers or students,"" the post says. A teacher’s recollection Hodge also put us in touch with Caryl Ayala, who described herself by phone as a former Odom pre-kindergarten teacher where, she said, the Welcoming Schools training took place in 2015-16. She said she had no recording or notes taken during the training but pointed us to a Concerned Parents of Austin website presenting what appeared to be part of the training presentation. According to one training module, ""What is Gender?,"" presenters were to get teachers to ""recognize that gender expression is a social construct, without meaning other than the meaning we have given it."" School district responses Seeking a full grasp on what teachers were taught and what students are told, we queried the Austin district. By email, a spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, initially conveyed a statement from Peter Price, district director of social and emotional learning, stating that in the 2014-15 through 2016-17 school years, 24 elementary campuses requested and received Welcoming Schools ""professional development,"" which Price described as a ""training for teachers to provide safe, supportive, inclusive environments for students and their families and to create a conversation among adults on campus to examine our language and practices."" In each instance, Price, said, a letter was sent home at the start of the school year and parents were invited to attend a module. Young emailed us an undated letter to parents stating the training focuses on embracing family diversity, ending bullying and avoiding ""gender stereotyping and accepting diverse gender identities."" From the parent letter: ""Pressure to conform to specific gender roles can limit a child’s development by limiting experiences and expectations. We believe it is important to allow all students to reach their full potential and to feel safe expressing their individuality."" So, are students taught that gender is fluid? In a follow-up statement, Price said ""one of the biggest misconceptions about our Welcoming Schools training for teachers is that they turn around after the training and present a curriculum/lessons to students about LGTBQ topics. That does not happen. The training is for adults, so they can be better prepared to welcome all students to our schools and to ensure all students feel safe and valued. There is no curriculum or lessons for the students."" We later connected with Lisa Goodnow, the district’s executive director for academic and social emotional learning, who said by phone that children in pre-kindergarten are taught about health and safety issues, not gender identity. Human sexuality gets taken up in middle and high school, Goodnow said. Goodnow emailed us a document showing topics addressed in the district’s human sexuality curriculum from kindergarten through fifth grade. Human sexuality gets mentioned in third grade, the document says, with puberty discussed in fifth grade; there’s no direct mention of gender identity in the document. When we asked Young about Austin schools doing the Welcoming Schools training in 2017-18, she replied that no schools were doing so but the district was ""looking into creating its own training program in the future for teachers and is taking the next year to develop it."" Documentation At our inquiry, the district also gave access to hundreds of pages of emails and other documents from recent years about the Welcoming Schools trainings and gender-related topics. We didn’t spot material suggesting teachers were telling students that gender is fluid. But documents did show interest among teachers and other staff in helping students come to terms with gender identity issues. Among the documents: --A 2015 paper, ""Beyond the Gender Binary: A Group for Teens,"" suggesting middle and high schools could provide opportunities for students to explore ""the many facets of gender identity and increase feelings of well-being in trans youth."" --A 2015 email from Superintendent Paul Cruz to principals and staff sharing changes in policy adopted by the school board to protect gender identity and expression. The email said: ""Gender identity refers to a person’s innate, deeply felt psychological identification as male, female or another gender. Gender expression refers to the external manifestation of a person’s gender identity, which or may not conform to socially defined behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being either masculine or feminine."" Cruz’s email further said he hoped to see the Welcoming Schools curriculum extended to all campuses. --A 2016 email from a district official to another sharing a CNN story on what it means to be ""gender-fluid."" --A Welcoming Schools packet about using books in grades one through three to look at gender stereotyping. --A list of ""gender identity"" books for students including picture books for students starting in pre-k. ""Adventures of Tulip, Birthday Wish Fairy,"" the list says, follows Tulip ""as he deals with the birthday wishes of all the nine-year-olds in North America. Tulip receives a wish from a child known as David to live as Daniela. He doesn’t know how to help, so he seeks the wise counsel of the Wish Fairy Captain."" Another listed book: ""All I Want to Be is Me,"" is described as giving voice ""to the feelings of children who don’t fit gender stereotypes, and who just want to be free to be themselves. Includes children who are fluid in their gender identity, as well as those that feel their body doesn’t match who they really are,"" the summary says. Human Rights Campaign We also heard back from the Human Rights Campaign about its training materials. By email, spokeswoman Sarah McBride provided responses from Johanna Eager, director of Welcoming Schools, who said: ""We do not say that gender is a choice, but in workshops with educators, Welcoming Schools does reference the research and data which demonstrate that children begin to understand their gender identity as early as the age of four."" We looked over the foundation’s suggested Welcoming Schools lesson plans, noticing that none focus on children in pre-kindergarten and the lesson plan on ""understanding transgender children"" contains no language saying children should be told gender identity is fluid though there’s reference to gender as a spectrum. That particular lesson plan, intended for teachers in kindergarten through fifth grade, lists among goals the expansion of ""students’ perception and understanding of gender"" and also understanding ""what it means to be transgender using developmentally appropriate language for younger students."" The plan also calls for students to read and discuss a nonfiction story, ""I Am Jazz,"" and it says students ""will learn new vocabulary words related to gender."" From the publisher’s summary of the story: ""From the time she was two years old, Jazz knew that she had a girl's brain in a boy's body. She loved pink and dressing up as a mermaid and didn't feel like herself in boys' clothing. This confused her family, until they took her to a doctor who said that Jazz was transgender and that she was born that way. Jazz's story is based on her real-life experience and she tells it in a simple, clear way that will be appreciated by picture book readers, their parents, and teachers."" The lesson plan says teachers should understand before reading the book to students ""that gender is a spectrum, not a binary, and that we all express ourselves in many different ways along that spectrum. Each child is an individual with their own unique expression of who they are in the world,"" the plan says. Definitions offered with the lesson plan include: ""GENDER IDENTITY: How you feel — male, female, neither or both. This can be different from the anatomy that you were born with (sex assigned at birth)."" ""TRANSGENDER/TRANS: When your gender identity (how you feel) is different than how your body is (your anatomy). When a person with a boy body feels like a girl inside their heart and brain. Or, when a person with a girl body feels like a boy inside their heart and brain. "" ""GENDER BINARY: The idea that there are two distinct and opposite genders — male and female / boy and girl. This idea is limiting and doesn’t allow for the many ways that children and adults express themselves."" We followed up with Young, who noted by email that the Austin district didn’t adopt the Welcoming Schools curriculum for classroom instruction. Further, she said: ""We are not aware of any elementary school teachers who are teaching gender fluidity."" Our ruling Hodge said: ""Schools in Austin Independent School District are teaching children as young as 4 years old that their gender is fluid – that they’re not a boy or a girl and they can choose whichever gender they want."" Hodge didn’t deliver proof of Austin students including toddlers getting told that gender is fluid nor did we confirm such instruction. It’s clear otherwise that the district has put energy into teachers understanding that each child comes to terms with gender identity among developmental issues. Teacher training materials include a lesson plan describing gender identity varying along a spectrum. – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." Claim: Schools in Austin Independent School District are teaching children as young as 4 years old that their gender is fluid – that they’re not a boy or a girl and they can choose whichever gender they want.

A: 0
****
Q: Paragraph: There is no discussion of cost in this story. According to the National Cancer Institute, genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can cost anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars and insurance does not always provide coverage. The story provides information regarding the relative and absolute risks associated with developing breast and ovarian cancer in patients with and without a mutation in the BRCA1 gene. For additional perspective, it would have been useful for the reader to know how many breast cancers are associated with BRCA gene mutations in the general population. While the story underscores how BRCA testing can lead to preventive measures to reduce the risk of developing cancer, it only mentions prophylactic surgery and not the less invasive options. There is no discussion of the emotional or social ramifications associated with receiving genetic testing results. Even receiving a negative result could lead to feelings of guilt, especially if other family members have tested positive. The story also fails to mention that undergoing prophylactic surgery to remove the ovaries, uterus and breast tissue can have serious effects on a woman’s health and quality of life. This story does not include a discussion regarding sensitivity or specificity of BRCA testing. The reliability of these tests, including information on false negative and false positive results, would be beneficial. Without providing a clear discussion on what constitutes a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer, readers who are not necessarily candidates for genetic testing may incur undue worry. It would have also been useful for the reader to know that only a very small number of breast cancers are associated with BRCA gene mutations. This story only provides commentary from one patient. Perspective from a genetic counselor and/or oncologist would have added value to this story, as would interviews with women who received a negative result and those who received a positive result, but dealt with the information differently. This story only discusses prophylactic surgery as an option for patients who test positive for mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Increased cancer surveillance, risk reduction behaviors, and chemoprevention should have also been presented as options. Genetic counseling services are not widely available in some geographic areas; however, this is not mentioned in the story. The story does not suggest that genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is a novel test; however, information on how long it has been available would have been useful. There does not appear to be a press release associated with this story. Claim: Cancer Activist Sounds Alarm For Early Testing For Genetic Marker

A:
0
****