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'.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The ruling Communist Party’s Politburo said on Friday it would step up macroeconomic policy adjustments and pursue more proactive fiscal policy, state media reported. With the world’s second-biggest economy expected to shrink for the first time in four decades this quarter, China is set to unleash hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus. The Politburo called for expanding the budget deficit, issuing more local and national bonds, guiding interest rates lower, delaying loan repayments, reducing supply-chain bottlenecks and boosting consumption. “We expect government ministries to roll out more tangible measures in the coming weeks as this Politburo meeting gave them no choice but to do more,” Goldman Sachs analysts said. The Politburo did not elaborate on plans for the central government to issue special treasury bonds, which would be the first such issuance since 2007. China should issue at least 2 trillion yuan ($282 billion) of such bonds to aid the economy, Morgan Stanley Chief China Economist Robin Xing said. Restrictions on foreigners entering the country went into effect on Saturday, as China reported no new locally transmitted infections and a small drop in so-called imported cases. Airlines have been ordered to sharply cut international flights from Sunday. Beijing has in recent days emphasized the risk posed by imported virus cases after widespread lockdowns within China helped to sharply reduce domestic transmissions. The Politburo said it would shift its focus to prevent more imported cases and a rebound in locally transmitted infections. “We must be extremely vigilant and cautious, and we must prevent the post-epidemic relaxation from coming too soon, leading to the loss of all our achievements,” the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper said in a front-page editorial. The authorities also reversed planned reopenings of movie theaters, the state-owned China Securities Journal reported, citing sources. With local transmission of the virus basically under control, China shifts focus toward rebooting paused businesses. China’s Ministry of Commerce said on Saturday nearly all of the country’s major supermarkets, convenience stores, shopping malls and farm produce retail markets have reopened, while all e-commerce platforms are operating. Meanwhile, 80% of restaurants and 60% of hotels are back in business, ministry official Wang Bin told a news conference. In a sign of businesses getting back to normal, wholesale prices of vegetables have dropped 16.5% from end-February, while pork prices have fallen 7.4% from a mid-February high. However, many street shops such as beauty salons are not yet open as “sentiment is reviving slowly, while people remain cautious about going out shopping”, Wang said. In China’s central Hubei Province, authorities had removed all highway checkpoints except those in its capital city Wuhan - the virus epicenter - and allowed traffic to leave the province as of Friday, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on Saturday. Hubei officials vowed to help businesses re-open and people get back to work. Gong Dingrong, mayor of Hubei’s Qianjiang, dubbed “lobster city”, said the government would promote sales across the country both online and offline, adding “there’s nothing to fear” eating lobsters from the city. China’s National Health Commission said on Saturday that 54 new coronavirus cases were reported on the mainland on Friday,  all imported cases. There were 55 new cases a day earlier, one of which was transmitted locally. The number of infections for mainland China stands at 81,394, with the death toll rising by three to 3,295, the commission said. Hubei province reported no new cases, and three new deaths. The province of 60 million, where the virus was first detected, has recorded 67,801 coronavirus cases and 3,177 deaths. Shanghai reported the highest number of new cases, with 17. An additional 11 cases were reported in Guangdong, six in Fujian, five in Tianjin, four in Zhejiang, three each in Beijing and Liaoning, two each in Inner Mongolia and Jilin, and one in Shandong. Chinese President Xi Jinping told U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday that China would support U.S. efforts to fight the coronavirus. The number of confirmed cases of coronavirus in the United States rose by at least 16,000 on Friday to nearly 102,000, the most of any country. George Gao, the director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, urged people to wear masks to control the virus’s spread overseas. Gao told the journal Science in an interview published on Friday that the “big mistake in the United States and Europe has been the failure to wear masks, which “can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others”. Claim: China readies stimulus measures as local virus cases dwindle.

Output: 2


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The fruit (soursop, guyabano), leaves, and bark of the graviola tree (A. muricata), have long been utilized as a folk remedy in parts of Africa and South America for myriad conditions. Claims of their potential to “cure” cancer, similarly, have long been a fixture in certain regions of the Internet — fringe health websites and supplement hucksters, primarily. In their most exaggerated form, such claims take the form of a widespread conspiracy alleging a pharmaceutical coverup to squash evidence of viable, powerful, and universal cure for cancer in favor of financial gain. The dubious Health Sciences Institute, (promoter of a previously debunked claim that Hillary Clinton has worked to hide a cancer cure dubbed “sour honey”) described the plant’s potential this way: Since the 1970s, the bark, leaves, roots, fruit, and fruit seeds of the Amazonian Graviola tree have been studied in numerous laboratory tests and have shown remarkable results with this deadly disease. Several years ago, a major pharmaceutical company began extensive independent research on it. They learned that certain extracts of the tree actually seek out, attack, and destroy cancer cells. […] After more than seven years of work behind closed doors, researchers at this company realized they couldn’t duplicate the tree’s natural properties with a patentable substance. So they shut down the entire project. It basically came down to this—if they couldn’t make huge profits, they would keep the news of this possible cure a well-guarded secret. But one researcher couldn’t bear that, and decided to risk his job with the hope of saving lives. Indeed, there has been research on many parts of, and chemicals within, the graviola tree with regard to their ability to kill cancerous cells. In terms of a possible mechanism, most ideas revolve around unique chemicals contained within the fruit — annonaceous acetogenins — that may present a novel pathway to kill cancer cells. These chemicals are found only in the family of plants Graviola belongs to (Annonaceae) and some research indicates they may have the ability to inhibit chemicals that aid cellular respiration, which can cause a “programmed death” of cancer cells. Perhaps most notably, this mechanism has been explored using extracts from graviola material against human lung, colorectal, and liver cancer cell lines. Such studies have found that extracts were indeed able to cause programmed cell death as hypothesized. Other studies have shown limited potential in reducing the proliferation of cancer cells in some animals and cell lines as well. It is worth mentioning, however, that many chemicals that show anti-cancer properties in laboratory settings do not translate to viable cures or treatments for cancer. Investigations on laboratory animals, too, have shown limited but somewhat positive results with regard to the plant’s anticancer potential. Studies on rats and mice, respectively, have shown some anti-tumor potential with prostate cancer and breast cancer, and studies on rats have, as well, shown potential preventive effects for colon cancer. Outside of singular case reports from people alleging benefits from the plant, no large scale clinical human studies have been published on its efficacy as a legitimate treatment for cancer (at least one clinical trial has been registered, however). As such, the view of the UK based Cancer Research, and other Cancer groups, is as follows: There have not been any studies [of Graviola] in humans. So we don’t know whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not. Many sites on the internet advertise and promote graviola capsules as a cancer cure but none of them are supported by any reputable scientific cancer organisations. Both the United States Food and Drug administration as well as the United States Federal Trade Commission have issued warnings to groups selling graviola extract with claims of its cancer-curing potential. In 2008, in a press release describing a “sweep” of graviola supplement sellers, the FTC described their products as “bogus“. Outside of overblown claims, there are also legitimate concerns about the safety of these products. Numerous studies have suggested that the potentially active chemicals within the graviola tree may be neurotoxic. Epidemiological studies of cultures that regularly use the plant in traditional medicine have shown associations between the plant’s consumption and Parkinson’s disease: Epidemiological studies, however, linked the consumption of Annonaceae to a high prevalence of atypical parkinsonism, in Guadeloupe, in parts of the Afro-Caribbean and Indian population in London and New Caledonia. In several patients who desisted in their consumption of Annonaceae fruits, the progression of atypical parkinsonism ceased […]. Chemical investigations of active components within the plant reveal strong evidence of its neurotoxicity, as well: The fruit pulp extract of A. muricata revealed the strongest neurotoxic effect, with 67% cell death at a concentration of 1 µg/mL. A high reduction in cell viability coupled with pronounced cell death was found at 0.1 µg/mL for an Annonaceous seed extract. These results demonstrate that the intake of dietary supplements containing plant material from Annonaceae may be hazardous to health in terms of neurotoxicity. Claim: The fruit of the graviola tree (soursop or guyabano), or other components of the plant (A. muricata), are a viable cure for cancer.

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: We flagged false and misleading claims from several candidates:The second set of Democratic primary debates was hosted by CNN at Detroit’s Fox Theatre on July 30 with 10 candidates. Another 10 will take the stage on July 31.O’Rourke falsely claimed that “no other country” has as many firearm-related deaths as the U.S.O’Rourke: How else can we explain that we lose nearly 40,000 people in this country to gun violence, a number that no other country comes even close to.O’Rourke didn’t specify a time period, but 39,773 people died from firearm-related injuries in the U.S. in 2017, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Of those deaths, 60% were suicides and 36.6% were homicides.But it’s not true that no other country comes close to the U.S., as O’Rourke said.In 2016, there were an estimated 43,200 firearm injury deaths in Brazil, according to a 2018 study published in JAMA. That was more than the estimated 37,200 firearm deaths that year in the U.S. Mexico, with an estimated 15,400 deaths by firearms, was the next closest country.The U.S., with 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people, also did not have the highest firearm injury death rate. More than a dozen countries had a higher rate than the U.S., including Brazil (19.4), Honduras (22.5), Guatemala (32.3) and Venezuela (38.7). El Salvador’s rate of 39.2 deaths per 100,000 people was the highest.O’Rourke also claimed that the CDC is “prevented from actually studying the issue [of gun violence] in the first place.” Under what’s known as the Dickey Amendment, no CDC funds “for injury prevention and control … may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” However, compromise language accompanying a 2018 spending bill clarified that, while that prohibition remains, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services has stated the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.”Update, July 31: A spokesman for O’Rourke’s campaign told us the former congressman meant that “no other developed country comes close to the number of gun deaths” in the U.S. That claim is accurate, but it’s not what he said in the debate. The candidates engaged in some misleading claims about the effects of the 2017 Republican tax cut.“Left everyone behind?” — Klobuchar referred to the bill as “that regressive tax bill that left everyone behind, but really made his Mar-a-Lago friends richer.” The bill did benefit wealthy people like those able to afford the $200,000 membership fee to join Trump’s Palm Beach resort. A 2017 analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated that in 2018 the average tax cut for those in the top one-tenth of 1% in income would amount to $193,380.But the bill certainly didn’t “leave everyone behind.” The TPC analysis estimated that the middle 20% in income would get an average cut of $930 in 2018.Klobuchar would have been correct to say that the bill favored the rich more than others. The TPC analysis estimated that the middle 20% would see their after-tax income go up 1.6%, less than half the 3.4% increase in after-tax income for the top 1%.“83 cents”? — Williamson dusted off a shopworn and misleading Democratic talking point that we’ve debunked before. She said, “We had a $2 trillion tax cut, where 83 cents of every dollar goes to the very, very richest among us.” That’s misleading.She’s referring to the TPC’s analysis of the effect of the Trump tax bill in 2027 — which is after most of the individual income tax changes would expire, should Congress not extend them. In 2025, when all of the bill’s provisions would still be in effect, the top 1% would get just over 25 cents of every dollar of the cuts.In explaining how he would run against Trump in the general election, Hickenlooper accused the president of “malpractice” and ticked off several examples — including manufacturing job growth.“Where’s the small manufacturing jobs that are supposed to come back?” he asked.It’s true that there are still 892,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, as of June, than there were in December 2007, when the Great Recession started. However, manufacturing jobs have increased under Trump.The economy has added 486,000 manufacturing jobs between Trump’s inauguration and June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As we wrote in the most recent installment of “Trump’s Numbers,” that amounts to 3.9% growth — the same rate as total employment has grown during that time.In discussing climate change, two candidates referred to decade-long deadlines to take action on the issue.Buttigieg broached the subject in his opening statement, saying, “Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate.”O’Rourke also referenced a similar time period. “I’ve listened to the scientists on this, and they’re very clear,” he said. “We don’t have more than 10 years to get this right.”In his closing statement, Buttigieg returned to the idea, adding, “By 2030 we will have passed the point of no return on climate.”As we explained in our coverage of the last Democratic debate, the time frames both politicians reference are pulled from a special report issued by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018.The IPCC report concluded that to avoid many of the more severe impacts of climate change, global warming would have to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — or about half a degree more than current warming. To reach that goal, the report said carbon dioxide emissions around the world would need to fall 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, and be net-zero by 2050.With just 12 years between 2018 and 2030, the report’s message was misinterpreted by many to mean that just over a decade remained to take action on climate change, or before an ecological catastrophe.“The problem with that framing from a scientific perspective is that climate change is not pass/fail,” Benjamin Cook, a climate scientist at NASA explained in a phone interview. “The 1.5 and 2 degree thresholds aren’t magical tipping points,” he said, where “we’re okay before then and it’s a disaster afterwards.”The consequences will be worse if we wait, he said, but even if the world surpasses 2 degrees of warming, any action we take to prevent further warming would still have value.It’s a point that other scientists have made as well. “Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030,” wrote Myles Allen, an author of the IPCC report and the leader of the ECI Climate Research Programme at the University of Oxford, in a Conversation article. “Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a ‘planetary boundary’ at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.”Sonali McDermid, a climate scientist at New York University, noted in an email that the longer we wait to take action, the harder it will be to make progress on climate change, which after the 1.5 degree target, could lead to or exacerbate loss of key ecosystems, increases in extremes, changes in seasonality that affect food production and infrastructure, and higher sea level rise. “But that doesn’t – and shouldn’t – imply or mean that we just give up after 12 years,” she wrote.So while the candidates are correct to say that scientists have warned about the effects of climate change — and advocate for sooner, rather than later movement on the issue — it’s not the case that 2030 is a “point of no return” or that there is a particular deadline for taking action.Ryan said of farmers, “They haven’t made a profit in five years.” That’s far from being true.The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently projected that net farm income would rise 10% this year, to $69.4 billion. And that broad measure of farm profits hasn’t been below $60 billion since 2006.It’s true that net farm income peaked at $123 billion in 2013 — a period of high commodity prices. Ryan would have been on firmer ground had he said farmers haven’t seen a big profit increase in five years.Sanders twice said that there were “87 million uninsured or underinsured,” saying this was the case “tonight in America, as we speak.” A Commonwealth Fund study supports that figure, though it includes those who were insured at the time they were surveyed but had had a gap in coverage in the prior year.“Of the 194 million U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 in 2018, an estimated 87 million, or 45 percent, were inadequately insured,” the study found, directing readers to Tables 1 and 2. The 87 million figure includes: 24 million uninsured in 2018, 43.8 million who were “underinsured” and 19.3 million who were insured at the time of the survey but had a gap in coverage in the previous year. The underinsured measure looks at out-of-pocket costs, not including insurance premiums, and the plan deductible. It includes people whose out-of-pocket costs were 10 percent or more of household income over 12 months, or 5 percent or more of household income for those earning under 200% of the federal poverty level; it also includes those whose deductibles were 5 percent or more of household income.The study found that fewer adults were uninsured in 2018, compared with 2010, but more people were underinsured.Warren defended her plan to fund child care and education by taxing “the top one-tenth of 1% of fortunes in this country.”By collecting a 2% tax on net worth over $50 million and a 3% tax on net worth over $1 billion, Warren promises to provide universal child care for kids up to age 5 and universal pre-K, raise the wages of child care and preschool teachers, offer free tuition at community and technical colleges, dedicate $50 billion to historically black colleges and universities, and cancel student debt for 95 percent of those who have it.Delivering on that promise depends on her tax plan generating $2.75 trillion over 10 years. But some economists are skeptical that it will actually raise that much. We wrote about it here.An op-ed from Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary and an economic adviser to former President Barack Obama, and Natasha Sarin, a law and business professor, suggested that Warren’s plan would raise about 40% of the projection.The Warren campaign hit back on the criticisms raised in that piece, arguing that the tax plan wouldn’t be weakened by loopholes and would include funds to bolster IRS enforcement. But it’s far from settled as to whether or not Warren’s plan will be able to pay for everything it has promised.When asked about the economic impact of policy proposals that would reduce public reliance on fossil fuels, O’Rourke said “wind and solar jobs are the fastest-growing jobs in the country.” We covered this issue once before — when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee made a similar statement — and found no federal data that could support such a claim.The BLS, the country’s official custodian of employment data, discontinued collecting data on all so-called “green jobs” in 2013. However, the agency does measure the number of jobs for some individual green occupations on an annual basis and projects job growth for these occupations.In 2017, BLS projected that solar photovoltaic installers and wind turbine technicians will be the two fastest-growing occupations by 2026. But that’s future growth, not current growth, and it is on a percentage basis. The actual number of additional jobs projected by 2026 is quite small.By 2026, BLS projects there will be 11,800 additional solar installers and 5,600 new wind turbine service technicians. That would be a 105 percent increase in solar photovoltaic installers and a 96 percent increase in wind turbine technicians from 2016 levels. By contrast, the third fastest-growing occupation — home health aides — will add 431,200 jobs, an increase of 47 percent.Home health aides also appears on the agency’s “most new jobs” projections, but the solar and wind jobs do not.We also found that, as of May 2018, there were an estimated 8,950 solar installers and 5,580 wind turbine service technicians. But a BLS spokesman told us that those figures represent a moving three-year average, so those figures should not be compared with those from previous years.The BLS data limitations make it impossible to measure the growth in “green jobs” in a way that is comparable with other occupations tracked by the agency. Two candidates misrepresented the Green New Deal during the debate, inaccurately stating that the nonbinding resolution offers Americans a guarantee of a government job.When asked why he felt the Green New Deal was unrealistic, Delaney responded, “Well, first of all, because it ties its progress to other things that are completely unrelated to climate, like universal health care, guaranteed government jobs, and universal basic income. So that only makes it harder to do.”Hickenlooper made the same claim in the last debate, and repeated it again twice in this debate.The Green New Deal, he said, would “make sure that every American is guaranteed a government job that they want.” Later, when Hickenlooper was also asked why he is opposed to the Green New Deal, he replied, “Well, I think the guarantee for a public job for everyone who wants one is a classic part of the problem. It’s a distraction.”As we explained after the June debate, the Green New Deal guarantees “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” The legislation, which failed to advance in the Senate in March, does not require the job be a public sector position. The Global Burden of Disease 2016 Injury Collaborators. “Global Mortality From Firearms, 1990-2016.” JAMA. 28 Aug 2018.Santhanam, Laura. “There’s a new global ranking of gun deaths. Here’s where the U.S. stands.” PBS NewsHour. 28 Aug 2018.Kochanek K.D., et al. “Deaths: Final data for 2017.” National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 68 no 9. National Center for Health Statistics. 24 Jun 2019.Collins, Sara R. et. al. “Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA.” The Commonwealth Fund. 7 Feb 2019.Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” 18 Dec 2017.Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Highlights From the March 2019 Farm Income Forecast: Farm Sector Profits Expected To Increase in 2019.” 7 Mar 2019.Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Value added to the U.S. economy by the agricultural sector, 2000-2009 Nominal (current dollars).” Data accessed 31 Jul 2019.Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Value added to the U.S. economy by the agricultural sector, 2010-2019F Nominal (current dollars).” Data accessed 31 Jul 2019.McDonald, Jessica. “The Facts on the ‘Green New Deal.’” FactCheck.org. 15 Feb 2019.Allen, Myles. “Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric.” The Conversation. 18 Apr 2019.IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Cook, Benjamin. Climate scientist, NASA. Interview with FactCheck.org. 26 Jul 2019.McDermid, Sonali. Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, New York University. Emails sent to FactCheck.org. 28 and 30 Jul 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey; All employees, thousands, manufacturing, seasonally adjusted.” Accessed 31 Jul 2019.Jackson, Brooks. “Trump’s Numbers July 2019 Update.” FactCheck.org. 12 Jul 2019.Kiely, Eugene. “Jay Inslee’s Green Jobs Claim.” FactCheck.org. 16 Apr 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Thirty fastest growing occupations projected to account for 19 percent of new jobs from 2016 to 2026.” Press release. 30 Oct 2017.Torpey, Elka. “Green growth: Employment projections in environmentally focused occupations.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. Apr 2018.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Most New Jobs.” Updated 12 Apr 2019. Accessed 31 Jul 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018. 47-2231 Solar Photovoltaic Installers.” Accessed 31 Jul 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018. 49-9081 Wind Turbine Service Technicians.” Accessed 31 Jul 2019. Claim: "No other country comes even close to"" the ""nearly 40,000 people in this country"" lost to gun violence."


Output: 0