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: President Alberto Fernandez earlier this week ordered all but essential workers to stay home and off the streets. But he was forced to amend the list of exceptions after receiving a message from the mother of a 7-year old boy who had recently lost his first tooth. “Dear @alferdez, I need to ask if the tooth fairy is among those exempted from quarantine? Joaquin has lost his first tooth and we don´t know if we should leave him a letter (we can´t find the tooth). We don´t want to cause the tooth fairy problems or for the police to detain him.”  Fernandez reassured the boy an hour later that the tooth fairy was indeed on the official list of exceptions. “@littlekbz Cecilita! The tooth fairy can leave rewards for fallen teeth because he is not under quarantine. But the rest of us are... Joaquin should leave the tooth beneath his pillow and enjoy the prize,” Fernandez wrote on Twitter. Aside from the tooth fairy, Argentina has also exempted key agricultural and export industry workers from the lockdown, and allows people on the streets to buy groceries and medicine, and for urgent medical needs. The country thus far has confirmed 158 cases of coronavirus and four deaths from the disease. Click here for a GRAPHIC on Argentina coronavirus cases
Example Output: Tooth fairy in quarantine? Argentina makes exemption in coronavirus lockdown.

Example Input: Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines are for the most part in an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to see better coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotine vaccine in a study. And later, the story says that smokers who received that vaccine were “about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo.” The story should have provided the absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere, the story describes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported on phase II human data that is available for the TA-CD anticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patients may benefit from the use of anti-addiction vaccines. The story states that “clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects” from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stage trials involving small numbers of patients that can’t provide conclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions are chronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body’s natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weight to the disappointing results reported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: “Failures have so far outnumbered successes.” The story adds that even in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefits were not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detail on the data published in the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the “Benefits” criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn’t attempting to summarize any particular study, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn’t exaggerate the effects of substance abuse disorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear from academics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments on a particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to hear a comment about the vaccines from someone who is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can’t justify docking points since there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addiction–and notes that the available drugs might work better. We would like to have seen more ink given to the role of behavioral approaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However, the story does acknowledge that vaccines “would likely be used alongside psychological therapy.” We’ll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that “It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market.” The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could have provided more background on the history of anti-addiction vaccines (a heroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different from anything currently available. So we don’t think this story overstates the novelty of the research. This story is not based on a news release.
Example Output: Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction

Example Input: The story mentioned the cost of the test, but the competing Bloomberg story gave a more detailed breakdown of costs. There was no mention of insurance coverage, or of total costs of work ups of positive tests and the need for continual testing. The story cites a company figure stating that the test “is more than 99 percent accurate in detecting mutations in blood samples that contain at least nine copies of a tested mutation.” It then knocks down that figure with a quote from a researcher who says the statistic represents the test’s “technical ability to detect DNA in the blood.” It goes on to state that a large clinical trial would be needed to determine the test’s true accuracy, including false positive and false negative results. But such a study hasn’t yet been done. The competing Bloomberg story gave a nod to false positives and false negatives, but Reuters really explained why these tests could lead to harms. The story says, for example, “Patients might be attracted to a less-invasive test for colon cancer, but if it is less effective, it might result in more cases of colon cancer, not fewer. Another concern is that the tests may pick up on markers that are never destined to be cancer, something already known to occur in blood tests for prostate cancer”. The story nicely explained the lack of evidence for this particular test. There was no disease mongering in this story. Quite the opposite. It turned a light onto this growing industry and questioned whether tests of biomarkers would actually lead to better clinical outcomes. The story quoted more independent sources than the competing Bloomberg story, and it also did a good job of identifying where people had conflicts. For example, the last expert quoted says that the test should undergo a large clinical trial, a point of agreement among multiple experts quoted in the press. But then the story says that this expert, “is advising two companies developing liquid biopsy tests for cancer screening: Sysmex and Personal Genome Diagnostics.” The true alternative to these tests is routine cancer screening using proven screening methods recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. In fact, the whole name “liquid biopsies” is wrong. These are not biopsies at all, they are screening tests for healthy people that look for biomarkers of cancer in the blood. But we don’t know what kind of clinical significance they have or if they will lead to better outcomes. Neither story gave a full explanation of the alternative screening approaches, although this story did mention colonoscopies (which are one such screening method) as well as screening tests for prostate cancer. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt. The story says that “The tests must be ordered by a doctor, based on a patient’s risk profile.” However, it’s not clear that this fully describes the process. While the tests can be ordered through the patient’s physician, the Pathway website also suggests that patients can order them autonomously online through Pathway’s “online physician network.” Here’s the text: Patients can also order CancerIntercept™ Detect online through Pathway Genomics’ online physician network. After speaking with a client services representative, the patient must create a personal account with Pathway Genomics Member Site (members.pathway.com) and enter all personal health information into the website for physician review. It will take up to 1-2 business days for physician review, at which time a sample collection kit will be sent to the patient’s provided shipping address if the test is approved. This process seems essentially to be a direct consumer purchase with the involvement of an online physician middleman — something which is not fully conveyed by the text. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt since it’s debatable whether the story is technically wrong on this point or not. But we wish more detail had been provided. The story establishes what’s novel about the test compared with existing tests. The story went beyond any news release that may have been issued.
Example Output:
Pathway launches 'liquid biopsy' to find cancer in healthy people