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'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: There is no mention of costs in the story. Although pridopidine is an experimental drug, it may have been useful for the reader to know whether pridopidine could be at least a cheaper alternative to tetrabenazine, the only drug currently approved for Huntington’s disease. The story did not detail the potential benefits of pridopidine. Specifically, how did the patients improve their motor function? The only number provided was that 70% of patients improved. We need to know how this function was measured and to what degree they improved (it is not clear whether the story was talking about statistical significance or clinical significance). The story notes, “Side effects among patients taking the drug were similar to the placebo group.” Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco also agrees with this statement, since the “compound is apparently well tolerated without significant side effects.” However, the story could have been more thorough in letting the reader know exactly what those side effects are. The story makes contradictory statements on the study’s results. At one point, the article reports, “…the drug showed a significant benefit,” while further down in the article, Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco is quoted as saying, “the benefit is modest and limited to the motor symptoms of the disease.” The story could have expanded on Di Rocco’s comment and also could have included some of the study’s limitations. For example, the researchers could not prove their primary hypothesis, for which they wrote in The Lancet: “This study did not provide evidence of efficacy.” The apparent benefits came from the tertiary endpoint, which merits a more cautious interpretation of the results. There is not any disease mongering, but the article does not provide much background information on Huntington’s disease, regarding its epidemiology, risk factors and treatments. However, the story does mention dopamine and its role in movement and coordination. Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco from NYU Langone Medical Center is used as an independent source. The story also adds that the study was funded by European pharmaceuticals company NeuroSearch A/S. The article mentions tetrabenazine – the only drug on the market for Huntington’s disease – and adds that it can “cause serious side effects.” The story mentions that study results are from a phase III clinical trial, but it does not clearly comment on the availability of pridopidine, or the class of dopidine drugs in general. The story could have simply said that this drug is investigational and is not available yet. Pridopidine is an experimental drug candidate for Huntington’s disease and has been in clinical trials for the past several years. The same quotation in the news release is used in the HealthDay story, suggesting that the article was somewhat based off the news release. However, there is some evidence of original reporting, with the inclusion of Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco’s comments. Claim: New Drug Shows Promise Against Huntington’s Disease

Ex Output:
1


Ex Input:
Paragraph: On June 9 2020, Facebook user Xavier Dillingham shared the following Twitter screenshots, which purportedly showed Google search results for the terms “professional hairstyles men,” “unprofessional hairstyles men,”  “professional hairstyles women,” and “unprofessional hairstyles women”:Dillingham included screenshots of tweets by @Denzel_Success and @dave_fieri with a visible date on one of June 6 2020:It’s deeper than police brutality https://t.co/6bJKhJa1w3— DENZEL SMITH (@Denzel_Success) June 6, 2020Hold up pic.twitter.com/xBBR8OZ7Cr— DAVE FIERI ❼ (@dave_fieri) June 6, 2020One of the screenshots visible in the Facebook post appeared to show at least one result specifically about the matter of Google’s purported racial bias in organizing images of men’s and women’s “professional hairstyles” and “unprofessional hairstyles.”When we searched “professional hairstyles men” on June 19 2020, the results were primarily of white men:As was a search for “professional hairstyles women”:When we searched “unprofessional hairstyles men” and “unprofessional hairstyles women,” the results appeared to have been altered by discourse on social media. For the second search, a number of collages appeared, along with links to content about bias in Google results:We also found discussions about the matter going back for years. On April 6 2016, Mic.com covered the same issue in an article titled “If You Google ‘Unprofessional Hairstyles for Work,’ These Are the Problematic Results,” reporting that April 2016 results included versions of the same hairstyle for both searches:The people in a search for professional hairstyles are predominantly white. Conversely, people in searches for unprofessional are mostly black — though for some reason, Elizabeth Banks as The Hunger Games’ Effie Trinket makes a surprise appearance.Twitter user MalumDube pointed out the irony of a similar style worn by Rachel McAdams was somehow deemed “unprofessional” when worn by a black woman.British outlet The Guardian published an editorial about the April 2016 controversy, in which the author described clicking through some of the images and explained their occasional context:In the case of the great hair debate, Google Images seems to have taken many of the pictures of black women wearing the “unprofessional” hairstyles were from blogs, articles and Pinterest boards. Many of these are by people of colour explicitly discussing and protesting against racist attitudes to hair. One image led me to a post criticising Hampton University’s ban on dreadlocks and cornrows; another was linked with a post celebrating natural hair and the “ridiculous” pressure to straighten it for the office; here’s a rejection of the idea that big, natural curls are “distracting” in a newsroom.One thing was clear between the 2016 popularity of a Google image search for “unprofessional hair men/women” and “professional hair men/women” — viral discourse in both instances appeared to influence the images returned by Google in both cases. Collages we found in the results on June 19 2020 often accompanied reporting on the Google results, pushing down what may have been earlier, accurately described results before tens of thousands of Google users tested the hypothesis.On June 10 2020, The Shade Room published a statement from Cathy Edwards, Vice President of Google Images, about the discussion. Edwards reiterated the claim that articles decrying descriptions of black women’s natural hair as “unprofessional” made up some but not all of the images:Google spoke exclusively to us to explain these image results, which are usually linked to articles that are actually denouncing the biases that black men and women face when it comes to their hair and society’s idea of what professional hair is supposed to look like.“Our Google Images search systems rely on a number of factors, including word matching, to surface results,” Cathy Edwards, VP of Google Images, tells us. “For many of the results, the words ‘unprofessional hairstyles’ appear in the articles, and many of these stories are rightly denouncing the discrimination people of color face when it comes to their hair.”While the images may be alarming, for the purposes of clarity, Google has taken the liberty of adding captions to help people under the relevancy of the images.“While we include captions to help people understand why these images are relevant to the query, we acknowledge that the association can be concerning and painful to see without the fuller context,” Edwards said. “Ensuring that all people and communities are able to find helpful results in Google Images is something we care about deeply and are actively working to improve.”Rating the veracity of the claim that Google search results for the terms “professional hairstyles men,” “unprofessional hairstyles men,”  “professional hairstyles women,” and “unprofessional hairstyles women” demonstrated racial bias was difficult due in part to how viral the claim became. Facebook posts and tweets with tens of thousands of shares reshuffled the results, and Google could have changed their algorithms in the two-week period between the June 6 2020 tweets and our June 19 2020 fact check. It is true that some of the results remained (and were the subject of scrutiny in 2016), but the results we evaluated were influenced by the interest generated by the claims — and other forces that remained invisible.Comments Claim: "If you Google ""unprofessional hairstyles for men"" and """"unprofessional hairstyles for women"" or ""professional hairstyles for men"" and ""professional hairstyles for women,"" results appeared to be racially biased."

Ex Output:
1


Ex Input:
Paragraph: As the new coronavirus, which is responsible for the disease COVID-19, spreads worldwide, so too has viral advice for combating the pandemic. One frequently copied and pasted bit of text that has gone viral on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp suggests a simple self-check for coronavirus infection, usually attributed to “Taiwan Experts,” “Stanford University,” or “Stanford Hospital Board,” among others: The new Coronavirus may not show signs of infection for many days. How can you know if you are infected? By the time you have fever and/or cough and go to the hospital, the lung is usually 50% fibrosis. Taiwan experts provide a simple self-check that we can do every morning: Take a deep breath and hold it for more than 10 seconds. If you do this successfully without coughing, without discomfort, stiffness or tightness, there is no fibrosis in the lungs; it basically indicates no infection. In critical times, please self-check every morning in an environment with clean air. Stanford Health Care, for their part, explicitly stated they had nothing to do with the email: A widely distributed email about COVID-19 that is attributed to a “Stanford Hospital board member” contains inaccurate information. It did not come from Stanford Medicine. The viral text is often combined with other frequently recurring coronavirus claims including a paragraph attributed to “serious excellent advice by Japanese doctors” about keeping your throat moist, and a set of recommendations that begins with a claim about differentiating between a cold and COVID-19. Snopes addressed the “serious excellent advice” here, and addressed the list of tips that begin with a purported way to diagnose a cold versus COVID-19 here. This article deals only with the “self-check” claim attributed to Taiwan experts, which is flawed for several reasons. The “simple self-check” hinges on two central and unsupported assertions: First, that early COVID-19 infections include as a symptom a condition known as pulmonary fibrosis; and second, that the ability to hold your breath for 10 seconds is an accurate indicator of fibrosis. Neither is the case. Claim: If you can hold your breath without coughing, discomfort, stiffness, or tightness, your lungs do not suffer from fibrosis and therefore you have no COVID-19 infection. 

Ex Output:

0