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: The decision by Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman in Norman, Oklahoma, came in the first case to go to trial out of 2,700 nationally by states, counties and cities seeking to hold drug companies responsible for the deadly epidemic. Balkman reduced the amount he had awarded in August by $107 million after agreeing with New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J that he had made a math error. J&J said it will appeal, and that the award and finding of liability were “neither supported by the facts nor the law.”  A spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said that office is reviewing the decision and will formally respond within the next few days. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following a non-jury trial, Balkman ruled in August that Oklahoma had proven that J&J engaged in misleading marketing about the benefits of painkillers, and that their addictive risks caused a public nuisance in the form of the opioid crisis. Hunter had sought to have J&J pay $17 billion to help fund addiction treatment and other services to repair damage from the opioid epidemic over the next 30 years. Balkman, however, awarded only enough money for one year of programs, saying Oklahoma failed to support its claims regarding the need to abate the epidemic in future years. Following the August ruling, Oklahoma asked Balkman for permission to return to his courtroom annually to prove those costs, but Balkman on Friday maintained his prior ruling. J&J, meanwhile, argued that it deserved a $355 million credit, reflecting pre-trial settlements by the drugmakers Purdue Pharma LP and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  Balkman concluded on Friday that state law did not allow such credits. Last month, J&J and four other companies proposed a $48 billion settlement framework to resolve all of the opioid cases they face, with J&J paying $4 billion. Lawyers for the local governments have opposed the proposal. If approved, the settlement would let J&J resolve some of the thousands of product liability lawsuits it faces. The company also faces litigation over whether its baby powder causes cancer, a claim it denies.
Example Output: Oklahoma judge reduces Johnson & Johnson opioid payout to $465 million.

Example Input: "Although the story mentions the cost of immunosuppressant drugs, the story does not mention the cost of the new transplant technique. Given the preliminary nature of the findings, it is not yet possible to quantify the benefits of the new transplantation technique. The story does not mention any potential harms of the therapy. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence. The story describes the studies as ""preliminary"" and brings attention to the very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as ""groundbreaking"" and ""breakthrough"" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of kidney disease. The story quotes multiple experts The story mentions immunosuppressants with traditional transplantation as the alternative to the new transplant technique. The story clearly states that the transplant technique is experimental and is only being performed in a handful of medical centers. The story clearly states that the treatment is a new approach. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."
Example Output: Some transplant patients OK without years of drug treatment

Example Input: "In the wake of the Orlando shootings and lacking congressional action regarding gun reform legislation, many are calling attention to the the devastating truths about gun violence in the United States. One of the vocal supporters advocating for tighter gun restrictions is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. Wasserman Schultz took to her Medium page to lament the occurrence at Pulse Night Club and to express the need for stricter gun legislation that she believes can prevent future gun violence fatalities, especially by suspected terrorists. In her June 18, 2016, post, Wasserman Schultz wrote that ""40% of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun — gun violence has touched someone you know."" Many other politicians have made many claims regarding gun violence, but this assertion seemed particularly far-reaching. Do two out of every five Americans know someone whose death can be attributed to a gun? We took a closer look. The evidence We reached out to one of Wasserman Schultz’s campaign representatives, and they told us that the 40 percent figure came from an October 2015 Huffington Post article that cited a YouGov poll from the same month. YouGov is an online market research organization that utilizes a network of over 4 million users who offer their personal views and experiences by participating in surveys. The poll that Wasserman Schultz refers to surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults selected by a random sample stratified by age, gender, race, education and region. One of the questions asked in the survey was, ""Do you personally know anyone who has been killed by another person with a gun?"" The poll found that 22 percent said yes, with 6 percent saying the person was in their family and the other 16 percent saying it was someone else they knew. Another question asked, ""Do you personally know anyone who has committed suicide using a gun?"" On that question, 28 percent of participants answered yes, with 7 percent knowing a family member who used a gun to commit suicide and 21 percent saying they knew someone else who committed suicide with a gun. The 40 percent figure asserted by the Huffington Post article as well as in Wasserman Schultz’s Medium post come from the total percentage of participants who had professed to knowing someone who had died because of a gun. The 40 percent figure is reached once you take into account the overlap between the respondents who knew both a homicide and a suicide victim. We reached out to to Peter Moore of YouGov, who published the poll online, to ask if Wasserman Schultz’s claim accurately encapsulated the results. ""I’ve had a look at the full dataset, and I can confirm that the 40 percent figure is accurate,"" Moore said. ""Her statement does properly capture the poll’s findings. It is also consistent with other similar survey data."" We asked Moore about possible sources of error in the survey, and he responded, ""There are none in particular beyond the general margins of error associated with surveys,"" which was determined to be 4.1 percent by YouGov. To contextualize the YouGov poll, we reached out to James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University. While not debating the results or methodology of the poll, he did offer some caveats. He noted that suicides account for a large share of the deaths -- a fact that may not be obvious from Wasserman Schultz’s statements. He also said that the poll’s wording leaves a fair amount of interpretation to the respondent. Respondents ""have to decide how well they know someone,"" he said. ""There are better ways to write questions like this so it’s not so vague."" In all, the way the questions were worded may make the percentage sound ""a lot worse than it is,"" Fox said. Past data While there have been many surveys conducted regarding guns and gun violence, the most similar polls to the YouGov poll were surveys conducted in 1993 and 1999 by Gallup. The question in both years was, ""Not including military combat, has anyone close to you--such as a friend or relative--ever been shot by a gun?"" In 1993, 64 percent responded no and 36 percent responded yes. In 1999, the percentage of people answering yes dropped to 31 percent, compared to 69 percent responding no. It’s important to note that the Gallup questions refer to people getting shot -- a larger universe than those getting shot and killed. So, it’s not a direct comparison. Though the Gallup results can by no means confirm or refute YouGov and Wasserman Schultz’s claim, the numbers do not appear drastically different. With limited inquiry into the number of people who are close to victims of gun violence, it is difficult to ascertain a clear estimate. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said, ""40 percent of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun ."" Wasserman Schultz is right about the 40 percent figure if you consider the YouGov poll findings. It’s important to note that a majority of the 40 percent figure comes from suicide deaths, not homicides. And there is limited research on this topic generally.
Example Output:
40% of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun.