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.

[EX Q]: The third-term Democrat touted past achievements and trumpeted a long list of policy initiatives, many of which he previewed in a series of announcements over the past month. Cuomo also stressed the need for fiscal restraint, with the state staring at a $6 billion budget gap, caused largely by soaring Medicaid spending. The agenda Cuomo outlined in the speech includes plans for expanding anti-discrimination protections in the state constitution, an overhaul for New York City’s Penn Station and a proposed ban on foam food containers. Cuomo also outlined another ban that would cover marketing flavored e-cigarettes to children, initiatives intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs, guaranteed paid sick leave time for more New York workers and expanded universal pre-kindergarten. “New York at her best is the progressive capitol of the nation, and we must fulfill that destiny again this year,” Cuomo said. Cuomo delivered his address at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center in downtown Albany to an audience of members of the Legislature and top politicians from around the state. The speech kicked off a legislative session running through June 2. The governor’s address comes after several episodes of violence targeting Jewish people, including an attack by a man who stormed inside the home of a Monsey rabbi, Chaim Rottenberg, and stabbed five people at a Hanukkah celebration. Rottenberg delivered a blessing before Cuomo’s address and called for tolerance. “I will never forget the horror of that night,” Rottenberg said. “But I will also never forget how we continue to celebrate after that day, how we continue to rejoice in the miracle of Hanukkah. I will never forget the resilience on display that night and in the following days, the resilience of Jewish people and the resilience of New York.” Cuomo is proposing a new law targeted at domestic terrorism and said New York would be the first state in the U.S. to enact such legislation. The new law would apply to crimes in which at least one person died and victims were targeted by their race, religion and gender, among other topics. Cuomo called the attack “intolerable” and pledged the state won’t stand for it. “They attacked me, and they attacked you,” Cuomo said. “These are the times, my friends, when New York state is called upon to lead to set a course for a troubled nation searching its way through the fog of confusion,” he said. In a policy briefing book that accompanied his speech, Cuomo said his proposal to legalize marijuana would limit the sale of cannabis products to adults over age 21. But he only briefly mentioned his legalization proposal in his address Wednesday, to tepid applause. A similar proposal to legalize recreational marijuana failed last year among disagreements over funding and hesitation from suburban Democrats. Lawmakers instead scaled back penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and created a process for expungement. Cuomo has declared “Making Progress Happen” as his slogan for 2020. But any progress will have to come while the state is grappling with a budget gap fueled by soaring Medicaid costs. Debate over how to handle the shortfall is expected to color virtually every policy debate this year. Hundreds of activists rallied in Albany demanding action on issues including the state’s ambitious climate change goals. Cuomo called climate change the “transcendent threat of our times” and proposed sending voters a $3 billion bond in November to fund a flood reduction and habitat restoration program he is calling Restore Mother Nature. “Because no economic strategy, no social justice reform, no education policy will be worth a damn if we don’t have a planet to live on,” he said. Cuomo has yet to share many details about his plans to address soaring costs of the Medicaid program, which serves over 6 million people. The governor called Wednesday for improved accountability in the Medicaid system, saying safeguards were needed to limit potential overspending on the program by municipalities. More details of how the administration plans to address the funding gap may have to wait for his budget proposal, expected in mid-January. Cuomo has cautioned against overspending while pledging not to raise taxes. That budget-conscious message could clash with more left-leaning lawmakers and advocates who want to balance the budget with new taxes on the wealthy. The governor’s party has seen big political wins in recent years, even as some long-time Democratic incumbents have lost to more left-wing challengers. But Cuomo argued Wednesday true progressive politics must be grounded in “reality” and champion results over rhetoric. Republicans, who have seen their clout diminish in Albany, say they will hold down spending and resist new taxes. Republican leaders including state GOP chairman Nick Langworthy criticized the governor for failing to address the budget deficit as well as a mounting debate over bail reforms enacted last year. Cuomo and other Democrats have signaled they are open to making changes to the statute. In his preview announcements over the past month, Cuomo has released proposals to ban untraceable guns, study high speed rail, allow liquor sales in movie theaters, require the use of American-made steel and iron on infrastructure projects and ease rules for prosecuting sexual assault involving intoxicated victims, among other initiatives. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat, said lawmakers have their own priorities this year, including working to increase school aid, affordable housing, infrastructure, local businesses, rural hospitals and mental healthcare.
[EX A]: Cuomo’s 2020 agenda: Fight hate, help planet, legalize pot.

[EX Q]: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.
[EX A]: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

[EX Q]: Hampden County Sheriff Nick Cocchi has designated a wing of his jail for the treatment of men civilly committed for substance abuse reasons. It’s the only facility in western Massachusetts housing the men, and just one of three in the entire state for men. While some are trying to end the practice, Cocchi and his supporters — including local mayors and lawmakers — say the jail’s year-old Stonybrook Stabilization and Treatment Centers is key to curbing the opioid problem in the county, which includes the former manufacturing cities of Springfield and Holyoke. Fatal overdoses surged more than 80% in Hampden County from 2017 to 2018 even as they declined statewide for the second straight year in 2018, according to state data. “People coming into our program are angry, violent and sick,” Cocchi said as he and other officials celebrated the program’s anniversary earlier this week. “They are at the end of the road, and their families have recognized that if they don’t intervene, they might not survive.” But the civil rights group Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts has sued the state in an effort to end the use of jails and prisons for forcibly treating men with addiction. The class action lawsuit was filed in March on behalf of 10 men who complained of poor conditions and mistreatment at another civil commitment program run out of a state Department of Corrections prison. A state commission has also recently recommended ending the practice of sending civilly committed men to jails and prisons, as the state did for women three years ago, following a similar lawsuit. Women are now sent to substance abuse treatment facilities run or contracted by public health agencies, as most civilly committed persons are in other states. “This should not be a choice between prison or nothing,” said Bonnie Tenneriello, a staff attorney with Prisoners’ Legal Services. “Why are we giving money to a sheriff to run treatment programs rather than funding civilian treatment?” Under state law, family members can ask a judge to order their relatives into treatment if they’re unwilling to go voluntarily and are deemed a danger to themselves or others. At least 35 states have such civil commitment laws, but Massachusetts is just one of a handful where it’s widely used, The Associated Press found last year. About 9,950 civil commitments requests were filed in state courts in the budget year that ended June 30. That’s down from more than 10,770 the prior year but up significantly from the 6,105 in fiscal year 2016 and the under 3,000 in fiscal year 2006, according to state data. Tenneriello and other opponents say forcing people into jails and prisons for treatment only reinforces the stigma around addiction. And studies, including the state’s own research , also suggest forced treatment largely doesn’t work and could raise the danger of overdose for those who relapse after treatment. Like the state corrections-run civil commitment facility, Hampden County’s program takes place, at least initially, behind the razor wire of its secure jail campus. Civilly committed men are also similarly segregated from the regular inmate population but required to wear corrections-issued uniforms and follow certain corrections protocols. But, in an effort to make the program feel less institutional, cell doors remain largely unlocked and program participants aren’t handcuffed, Cocchi and some recently released patients said. “Yes, it’s a jail setting. There are corrections officers walking around,” said Keith Molyneux, a 40-year-old recovering from heroin addiction who was among the first to complete the program last year. “But they’re more committed to helping you here than to actually being a correctional officer. You definitely feel like they’re there to help.” After a few weeks of detoxing at the jail, most are eventually transferred to a less secure facility located off-campus in a converted nursing home. There, the men can wear civilian clothes and are housed in rooms that are larger and more dorm-like. Early results of the approach — which also includes health care professionals administering addiction treatment medications and leading counselling sessions — are encouraging, Cocchi said. Since opening last May, more than 850 men have gone through the program, staying 47 days, on average — weeks longer than they do at the state’s other two facilities. The longer stays increase the odds that the men will stay sober, Cocchi said. So far, less than 5% have had to be recommitted, though two fatally overdosed after leaving the program. Lawmakers, meanwhile, have committed $1 million to the program in the current state budget, proving the effort has strong support, despite its detractors, he said. “Let us continue doing what we’re doing,” Cocchi said. “No one else is doing this work out here, but we’re doing it, and we’re doing it well. Why shouldn’t we be applauded and supported?” ___ Follow Philip Marcelo at twitter.com/philmarcelo. ___ This story has been corrected to identify the Hampden County sheriff as Nick Cocchi, not Thomas Cocchi.
[EX A]:
Region hit hard by opioids embraces jail-based treatment.