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]: The story does a good job of describing the costs of angiopasty compared to a stress test. The story could have discussed out of pocket costs for patients. The story could have quantified the benefit of stress testing in its ability to avoid angiography and angioplasty associated with it. The story mentions missing cases of heart disease and difficulties of performing the test in older patients as potentional harms of stress testing, but there are other harms that the story should have mentioned. The story adequately describes the design of the current study and points out some important caveats inherent in a database-based study. The story does not exagerrate the seriousness or prevalence of stable heart disease. The story quotes multiple sources. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to stress testing. The story could have done more to describe the pros and cons of angiography compared to stress testing. Clearly stress tests are available. Clearly stress testing is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
[A]: More stress tests needed before angioplasties, study says


[Q]: Amid mounting global concern over the public health implications of so-called e-cigarettes, Touraine said they faced the same fate as traditional ones: a ban on smoking in public spaces and sales to minors and a blackout on media advertising. In a country where the pungent waft of Gaulloises and Gitanes once seemed an unassailable part of cafe culture, smokers have long been banished to outdoor terrace seats. The near-odorless electronic alternative - battery-driven devices that allow users inhale odorless nicotine-laced vapor rather than smoke - are gaining ground in no-go zones such as bars, cafes, trains, waiting rooms and offices. A government-commissioned report said this week that around 500,000 people in France had turned to e-cigarettes, which are designed to look like cigarettes although some come in different colors, and recommended a crackdown on public use. Health officials in many countries say the impact of electronic cigarettes on health needs further study. Another worry they cite is that the electronic alternative will increase the general temptation to smoke, including enticing those who have quit to start again, or that smokers may use them alongside rather than instead of regular cigarettes. “This is no ordinary product because it encourages mimicking and could promote taking up smoking,” said Touraine, who announced her plans at a news conference. In the United States, the number of smokers who have tried out e-cigarettes doubled to one in five in 2011 and the number of all adults trying it doubled too, to 6 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In France, a country of 66 million, the government says tobacco smoking kills some 66,000 people a year and another 5,000 are killed through passive exposure to smoke. The expert in charge of the French report advised against an outright ban on e-cigarettes, however, saying they still seemed safer than tar-laden tobacco. Electronic cigarettes, whose invention is widely credited to a Chinese pharmacist a decade ago, usually comprise disposable cartridges of liquid such as propylene glycol that is easily turned to vapor and can contain artificial flavors alongside concentrated liquid nicotine.
[A]: France to ban electronic cigarettes in public.


[Q]: ClientEarth has taken action against the government twice before, in 2015 and 2016. The Supreme Court ordered the government to produce a new air quality plan in 2015. In 2016 the High Court ordered a new plan which came out earlier this year. However, ClientEarth says that the plan stills fall short of what is needed to bring pollution within legal limits as soon as possible and is therefore seeking a judicial review. “We need clarity from the government and for that we’ve been forced to go back to court,” James Thornton, chief executive of ClientEarth, said in a statement. No one at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was immediately available for comment. The firm said the reasons for the judicial review are that the latest government plan backtracks on previous commitments to make five cities in Britain introduce clean air zones by 2020. The plan also does not require any action from 45 local authorities in England, despite them having illegal levels of air pollution and it does not require any action from Wales. Under the EU’s Air Quality Directive, member states were supposed to comply with nitrogen dioxide emission limits in 2010 - or by 2015 if they delivered plans to deal with high levels of the gas, which is produced mainly by diesel engines. Nitrogen oxide emissions reduce air quality and are associated with respiratory and other illnesses.
[A]:
Britain faces new legal challenge over air quality improvement plan.