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: """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 ."

A: We jumped 11 places since beginning this year in terms of being job-friendly.
****
Q: "Liquid chocolate is prepared in the workshop of the ""Felicitas"" chocolate shop in Hornow, south of Berlin, December 2, 2009. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch The study, which combined the results of 42 smaller studies and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also found that participants had small improvements in blood vessel function and a dip in their insulin levels. A number of past studies have found that chocolate lovers seem to have lower rates of certain heart risks, such as high blood pressure. “My take-away message would be that if people like dark chocolate, then eating a little in place of other ‘treat’ foods is fine, and may be beneficial,” said study leader Lee Hooper, at Norwich Medical School in the UK. “However, the evidence is not yet good enough to suggest that we should all be doing this.”   She cautioned that the studies involved were neither large enough nor long enough to show whether eating chocolate has any effect on a person’s risk of having a heart attack or stroke. In contrast to past studies, which were largely observational and couldn’t prove cause-and-effect — that chocolate itself caused the changes — the current study focused on clinical trials, where researchers assigned people to eat chocolate or not and then watched for changes in blood pressure, cholesterol and other heart risk factors. Hooper and her team pooled data from 42 small clinical trials involving about 1,300 people and found that chocolate eaters had a few points knocked off their blood pressure readings, along with lower insulin levels and other benefits. Though it’s not clear why chocolate has this affect, it’s believed to be due to compounds known as flavonoids, which are also present in foods such as nuts, soy, tea and wine. But researchers acknowledged shortcomings in their study, including differences in the people involved in the trials — some healthy, some with chronic health problems — and different ways of testing chocolate’s effects. Some studies used cocoa drinks, some solid chocolate and some cocoa supplements. They also varied in how long people were “treated,” though most trials lasted less than six weeks. The biggest question may be whether any benefits would be worth the downside of chocolate. Based on the studies they used, Hooper’s team writes, it could take several hundred calories’ worth of chocolate to see effects on insulin and blood vessel function — and that could mean trouble for your waistline. “From a practical perspective it is premature to advise individuals to consume chocolate or cocoa to decrease their risk of cardiovascular disease,” said Alice Lichtenstein, director of the cardiovascular nutrition lab at Tufts University in Boston, who was not part of the study. For now, she added, if you enjoy a little chocolate in your life, you can probably keep doing so. Just don’t add it in the hopes of helping your heart."

A: Chocolate may be good for your heart: study.
****
Q: Such an amendment would have been unprecedented among U.S. states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Democratic-controlled state House approved the measure 35-25 on Feb. 13, but it never reached the floor of the Democratic-controlled Senate for a vote. Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, chairwoman of the Senate Health Care Committee, said it was never brought to a vote in committee because it did not appear likely to pass by the entire Senate. “I firmly believe that health care is a right,” Monnes Anderson, a Democrat from the Portland suburb of Gresham, said in an email. “As a retired public health nurse I see how no access to health care affects your ability to keep a job and children to learn.” The amendment to the 160-year-old Constitution would have obliged the state “to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right.” Opponents had said there was no plan to fund making health care access a right, and warned that doing so would make the state vulnerable to lawsuits. The League of Women Voters was among the opponents. “The State of Oregon has insufficient income to support its current responsibilities and cannot provide the added cost of health care coverage for all its residents at this time,” it said in written testimony. Lawmakers have wrestled over the issue as the Trump administration has tried to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s health care law. “There were general concerns that there might be a lawsuit or something similar that might force the issue on what is now being touted as an aspirational thing,” said Rick Osborn, spokesman for the Senate Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, a Democrat from Portland, said there just wasn’t enough time during the current five-week legislative session to gain critical mass on the measure. “The bill would have needed extensive amendments for it to get the support it needs in the Senate,” Burdick said. ___ Follow Andrew Selsky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/andrewselsky

A:
Oregon effort to declare health care a right falters.
****