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: "While these studies examined prostate cancer mortality rates and treatment outcomes, monetary costs are an important part of the larger conversation about the value of screening. There are significant financial costs associated with population-wide screenings, along with the follow-up diagnostic procedures and treatments that these studies suggest are of little benefit. The reporter should have referenced costs of screening and treatments at least briefly. There are two studies involved here, each with its own methodology, outcomes and limitations. Under the circumstances the news report describes the findings adequately, using a broad brush. The report states that the U.S. study found no decline in death risk in the screened population, while the European study showed a 20 percent reduced risk of death–yet it also documented considerable overtreatment. The reporter gets points for using the always valuable ""number needed to treat"" measure to describe the European findings: 48 additional men would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The story focuses in part on the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The story is based on results of two high-quality clinical trials, and it describes the methodologies sufficiently. The story does an excellent job of laying out the caveats very early: that the results won’t end the controversy over the value of prostate cancer screening; and that the studies continue and may provide clearer answers in the future. The reporter gets extra points for mentioning too that the two studies aren’t directly comparable. The report does nothing to exaggerate the effects of prostate cancer or its treatments. The reporter includes comments from the lead authors of the two studies, the author of a related editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, and a physician representing the American Cancer Society. The story adequately explains that screening options include the PSA blood test and the digital rectal exam. The story also refers to the options for treatment after a cancer is identified, indicating that ""there’s no agreement on the best treatment approach""–watchful waiting, surgery, hormone therapy or radiation. The wide use of the PSA test is implied throughout the story. No claims are made for the novelty of the screening techniques or the findings of the study. The story does not appear to draw directly from press releases of NIH, the Washington University School of Medicine, or others publicizing the results."
Example Output: Studies don’t end prostate cancer test controversy

Example Input: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Example Output: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues

Example Input: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Tuesday ordered a new trial for GlaxoSmithKline Plc against an Abbott Laboratories spinoff because Abbott excluded the potential juror. The case involved Abbott’s pricing of HIV medications, a controversial issue in the gay community. Glaxo accused Abbott of improperly hiking the price of one drug, Norvir, to help it preserve sales growth of one of its other HIV blockbusters, Kaletra. The jury returned a mixed verdict in 2011, and Glaxo was awarded far less money than it had originally sought. However, Glaxo appealed the lower court’s decision to allow Abbott to exclude the juror, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the constitution prohibits jury strikes because of sexual orientation. “Strikes exercised on the basis of sexual orientation continue this deplorable tradition of treating gays and lesbians as undeserving of participation in our nation’s most cherished rites and rituals,” 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. Glaxo spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne said the company is pleased with the ruling. Abbott spokesman Scott Stoffel said Abbott passed its HIV portfolio to a new company, AbbVie Inc, last year. AbbVie representative Adelle Infante said the company is evaluating its options. The 9th Circuit on Tuesday cited United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the law defining marriage as between one man and one woman violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. However, Kennedy’s ruling was ambiguous on just how far gay rights protections should extend, Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman said. Since the ruling was issued, judges around the country have grappled with how to apply it in a variety of gay rights cases, including rulings that permitted same-sex marriage in Oklahoma and Utah. Those cases are currently under appeal. “The big difference between now and Windsor is a shift in the culture,” Koppelman said. “Discrimination that made intuitive sense to people before doesn’t make a whole lot of sense anymore.”  Norvir plays a key role in AIDS-fighting cocktails because it can boost the effectiveness of other drugs. Glaxo accused Abbott of raising Norvir’s price by 400 percent in 2003, as part of an effort to harm competitors whose drugs were dependent on being used in combination with Norvir. During jury selection in an Oakland, California federal court, a potential juror discussed his partner by using the masculine pronoun “he” several times. The juror also said he did not know whether any of his friends were taking the medications at issue in the case. Abbott’s attorney sought to exclude the juror, and Glaxo objected, saying that Abbott was attempting to use a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory way. However, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken allowed Abbott to exclude the juror. Glaxo had sought $571 million, but after a four-week trial the jury awarded Glaxo $3.5 million. Given the legal reasoning in Windsor, the 9th Circuit held that gays and lesbians deserve the same constitutional protections during jury selection as those enjoyed by African-Americans and women. Juror strikes based on sexual orientation “deprive individuals of the opportunity to participate in perfecting democracy and guarding our ideals of justice on account of a characteristic that has nothing to do with their fitness to serve,” Reinhardt wrote. The case in the 9th Circuit is Smithkline Beecham Corp dba GlaxoSmithKline vs. Abbott Laboratories, 11-17357.
Example Output:
Gay juror's ouster forces new U.S. pharma trial.