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 latest work, which appears in the journal PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, also suggests that different policy steps might be needed in that case. “My study essentially shows that the methods used and analyses presented in the original research are insufficient to rule out other explanations (for lower IQ),” said Ole Rogeberg, an economist at the Frisch Centre for Economics Research in Oslo, to Reuters. The Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Study is an ongoing report produced by New Zealand’s University of Otago, monitoring 1,037 New Zealand children born between April 1972 and March 1973. The study followed them for 40 years. The participants were periodically tested for IQ and other indices including drug taking, and in 2012 clinical psychologist Madeline Meier produced a study saying there was a link between teenage cannabis use and a lower IQ. Researchers in the Meier study compared the IQ trends of people who never smoked cannabis with four groups of those who did: people who smoked, people who scored as dependent in a follow-up survey, those who scored as dependent twice and those who scored as dependent three times. The study found IQ declines increasing “linearly” with cannabis use, Rogeberg wrote in PNAS. The crucial assumption in the Meier study is that cannabis use is the only relevant difference between the groups tested, he said. His use of a simulation model showed that it may be premature to draw a causal inference between marijuana use and falling IQ scores. For one thing, other writing about the Dunedin group on which Meier’s study is based suggest that early cannabis use is more common for people with poor self-control, previous conduct problems, and high scores on risk factors linked to low family socioeconomic status, he wrote. Given these factors, young people from lower status families tended to end up in less intellectually demanding environments, whether by choice or by circumstance, which would increase the difference in IQ levels as they aged. “We know that the researchers have measured the IQ of the participants at various ages in childhood - but we don’t know if the IQ changes were similar for the different cannabis-using groups before their cannabis use,” he told Reuters. “We don’t know how much of the change in IQ we can explain by differences in education, jail time, occupational status, etc and whether this affects the estimates in the paper.”
[EX A]: Study casts doubt on link between cannabis, teen IQ drop.

[EX Q]: Besides holding a rare special session, the full Legislature will meet in a way unlike ever before. A small number of lawmakers will meet in the state Capitol in Cheyenne and the rest will take part by video conference. Lawmakers have drafted five bills, four of which have mirror versions so the House and Senate can consider them simultaneously, and plan to wrap up no later than Saturday. The bills would: — Give Gov. Mark Gordon guidance in allocating $1.25 billion in federal Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding. Legislators propose putting the money toward emergency public health costs, aid for families and businesses, economic development programs including infrastructure projects and, to the extent federal law allows, replacing public revenue lost during the pandemic. — Help ensure that people who fall ill from the coronavirus can collect unemployment benefits and not be evicted for missing rent payments. — Alter state funding calculations for school districts and authorize Gordon to make certain emergency funding transfers between state agencies. — Allocate up to $275 million in interest-free loans and other aid for businesses affected by the coronavirus. — Give legal immunity to businesses whose customers contract the coronavirus, a proposal to be initially taken up by the Senate only. The public can monitor the proceedings online. Journalists will keep an eye on things from the House and Senate galleries. Wyoming’s previous special session in 2004 involved an ultimately unsuccessful constitutional amendment to limit payouts in medical malpractice cases.
[EX A]: Rare Wyoming Legislature special session to take on COVID-19.

[EX Q]: Tapering is presumably free in and of itself, since it’s a slow and gradual lessening of opioids (which a person might already be using to begin with), so we’ll mark this N/A. However, it would require medical oversight and perhaps other alternative pain treatments, both of which aren’t free. We’re told that with tapering, based on the literature review, “patients on average saw improved pain, function, and quality of life.” But what do those terms mean, exactly, and how much of an improvement on those criteria — numbers-wise — are we talking about here? Readers aren’t told. Some numbers would have helped readers make more sense of what “improved” means. The harms are addressed right away: Come off opioids too quickly, and patients can suffer by having little recourse to deal with chronic pain. Some even resort to illicit drugs or commit suicide. One of the study’s authors is also quoted as recommending doctors and patients to exercise caution if tapering is being attempted, and another explains that not all patients respond the same way (and do poorly with tapering). This article does a thorough job of laying out the study’s design, discussing what it found, and what its flaws might be. The author, in fact, dedicated several paragraphs to hedging the study’s conclusions by walking readers through its hang-ups, including its reliance on small studies with sometimes poor methodologies. The self-selecting nature of the subjects in those studies is also described— i.e. only those who volunteered to taper off opioids were studied, not people who didn’t want to go off opioids. We didn’t see any gratuitous wording about the opioid epidemic or treating painkiller addiction in this story. A refreshing number of outside experts are quoted or cited in this story, and their remarks weren’t the typical “the study was intriguing” variety. Their quotes added some helpful context, such as how long it can take doctors to wean people off opioids (“months or even years”) and how everyone responds differently to tapering — and how some do poorly with it. This is one of the appreciable strengths of the story. It not only implies going cold-turkey as an option (and the pitfalls of that approach), but also digs into the topic of non-opioid pain-relief treatments to help patients deal with chronic pain as people they taper. We’re also told how such treatments can be too expensive/out of reach for some, even those with health insurance — either due to lacking coverage or nearby access to capable doctors and facilities. The story delivers: It states that tapering is available, yet that it’s to be attempted with caution. Non-opioid pain-relief treatments, which are also noted by the story, are also said to be available, though out of reach for many. While the approach of tapering itself itself isn’t new, this article explains that the review is novel in that it increases confidence in the idea of tapering as an effective — though with many caveats, since the studies used in the review were mostly of “poor” or “fair” quality. We didn’t detect any evidence of copy-and-paste press release quotes or passages in this story.
[EX A]:
A new study suggests it’s possible to get people off opioids and improve their pain