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 Q]: Paragraph: "On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League’s evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there’s evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame’s Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University’s Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don’t, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it’s possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach." Claim: A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Once the captain announced their vessel may be tainted with coronavirus, Grand Princess cruise ship guests like Kathleen Reid were left with little to do but contemplate the prospect of extended isolation at sea, or worse. “My first reaction was, ‘Oh, crap. We’re going to be quarantined, and maybe get sick,’” Reid, 67, a retiree from Granbury, Texas said. “We don’t know what’s happening, so we’re just kind of in limbo, waiting.”  Reid, who spoke to Reuters by cell phone on Thursday, was one of some 2,300 passengers stuck with about 1,100 crew members aboard the Grand Princess, idled off the coast of California a day after the ship was denied entry to its home port in San Francisco. Like the Diamond Princess, the liner held in quarantine off Japan last month, the Grand Princess is owned by a unit of Carnival Corp, the world’s largest cruise operator. Experts have criticized Japanese bureaucrats’ handling of the onboard quarantine, as ultimately about 700 people were infected and six have died in what was at the time the largest concentration of coronavirus cases outside China. California Governor Gavin Newsom insisted that the Grand Princess remain at sea until passengers and crew complaining of flu-like symptoms during a 15-day roundtrip cruise to Hawaii could be tested for possible coronavirus infection. On Thursday, the U.S. Coast Guard airlifted a batch of diagnostic kits to the ship via helicopter, and public health officials said samples collected would be flown back to a San Francisco Bay Area state laboratory for testing. Results were expected in about 24 hours, said Mary Ellen Carroll, executive director of the city’s Department of Emergency Management. State and local officials acted after learning that 35 people aboard the ship had fallen ill, and that two passengers who had traveled on the same vessel for a voyage last month between San Francisco and Mexico later tested positive for coronavirus. One, an elderly man from Placer County near Sacramento with underlying health conditions, died this week, marking the first documented coronavirus fatality in California. The other, from the Bay area, was described by Newsom as gravely sick. Health officials say both individuals likely contracted the virus while they were aboard the ocean liner. The Princess cruise line said fewer than 100 passengers and crew from the Hawaii voyage of its Grand Princess have been identified for testing, including those who were ill.  Tests will also be given to dozens of holdover passengers from the Mexico trip who stayed on the ship for the voyage to Hawaii, as well as “guests currently under care for respiratory illness,” the cruise line said in a statement. They will remain quarantined on the ship until cleared by medical staff. Specialists from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were working with local health authorities and the Coast Guard to coordinate the operation. They also were seeking to contact some 2,500 passengers who disembarked in San Francisco on Feb. 21 after the earlier cruise to Mexico. One of them, a Canadian woman from the province of Alberta, tested positive for the virus this week, health officials there said. Princess Cruises has canceled the next scheduled departure of its Grand Princess Hawaii voyage from San Francisco, which had been set for March 7. Passengers on the current cruise, meanwhile, were forced to make do with a rapidly shrinking choice of amusements. Having already lost access to many of the ship’s favorite attractions - the bar, casino, shops, food buffet and gym - guests were also urged to practice “social distancing,” making an effort to keep at least 6 feet away from strangers on the ship, the company said. By midday on Thursday, they were asked to confine themselves to their staterooms until further notice. It was unclear what would occur should anyone now aboard the ship test positive for the respiratory virus, which has infected more than 95,000 people worldwide, most of them in China, where the outbreak originated. “Once we have results from the tests, the CDC and the state will determine the most appropriate location for the ship to berth, and the location needs to provide for the safety of the surrounding community as well as the passengers and crew,” Carroll told reporters on Thursday. She said the ship might be directed to an arrival point other than San Francisco. Reid, who is traveling with her husband, said the ship’s captain was keeping passengers informed of developments throughout the day with announcements every couple of hours, and that fellow guests seemed to be taking the uncertainty mostly in stride. “People are, I’m sure, a little anxious, but nobody has just gone screaming mad yet,” Reid said, adding she had seen no obvious signs of anyone being sick. “Hand-washing is a big deal,” she said, but “nobody is walking around sneezing or coughing.” Claim: Cruise ship passengers 'in limbo' off San Francisco awaiting coronavirus tests.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Publishing a study that found risk score tools are only around 46 percent accurate on how likely psychopathic convicts are to kill, rape or assault again, they said probation officers and judges should set little or no store by such tests. They warned that clinicians carrying out such classifications must be aware of their severe limitations, and make sure prisoners undergo comprehensive psychiatric diagnosis before any risks assessment is made. “If you apply these (tests) to somebody who is a psychopath, they’re utterly useless, you might as well toss a coin,” said Jeremy Coid, director of the forensic psychiatry research unit at Queen Mary University of London who led the study. “They will not predict accurately at all,” he told reporters at a briefing in London about his findings. Coid and other forensic psychiatrists say the findings - which also showed the tools perform only moderately well in prisoners with disorders like schizophrenia, depression, drug and alcohol dependence - could have major implications for risk assessment in criminal justice systems. “There are increasing expectations of public protection from violent behavior, and psychiatrists can be seriously criticized if they make wrong decisions,” he said. Seena Fazel, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Britain’s University of Oxford, said the reliability of the tests’ predictive ability was so low that it might be best not to use them at all - and warned that at the very least, their results should only be noted by parole boards, rather than acted upon. “If you’re going to use these instruments, be aware of their strengths and limitations,” he told reporters. The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy in the general population is around 1 percent, but that rises to between 15 percent and 25 percent among men in prison. Coid, whose study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, analyzed data from 1,396 male prisoners in England and Wales who were interviewed between six and 12 months before their release. All the men were serving sentences of two or more years for a sexual or violent offences. The prisoners were assessed for personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia, depression and drug and alcohol dependence, as well as being measured for psychopathy on a reputable scale known as Hare Psychopathy Check List. After their release, data on their re-offending rates was added to the study, and showed that among three different re-offending risk assessment tools used before their release, the accuracy among psychopaths was below 50 percent. While the tools were more accurate in predictions for prisoners with no mental health disorders - at around 75 percent accuracy - they were only around 60 percent right when it came to prisoners diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. For prisoners with anti-social personality disorders the predictive value of the tests ranged from poor to little more than chance, with an average 53.2 percent predictive accuracy. And for the 70 prisoners rated as psychopathic, none of the tests was statistically better than chance. Coid said the results suggest it is time to question the expectations put on psychiatrists and psychologists asked to forecast future behavior of offenders, and to consider what can happen to their reputations if predictions are wrong. “The easy solution is to be highly restrictive on who is released, and be risk averse. However, even for serious offenders, most will be released at some stage and someone has to carry out a risk assessment,” he said. “We need to prioritize the development of new assessment tools for these hard-to-predict groups.” Claim: Predicting violence in psychopaths is 'no more than chance'.
[EX A]:
2