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 story says gum costs ""a few pennies."" The study itself puts the cost at 4 cents per stick. The report does a good job of handling the statistics, with proper caveats. The story reports: The story does include a comment from a physician who warns that someone chewing gum after surgery may swallow air, which can create problems. The story explains that the findings come from an analysis of five studies, alluding to the fact that this was a meta-analysis. The story could have given a line about the quality of such evidence. The story does not exaggerate the complications following colon surgery. The story is based on a credible meta-analysis published in a top-shelf journal. The report includes comments from both a study co-author and a skeptical independent expert. The independent expert interviewed offers an alternative to chewing gum to speed recovery–introducing liquids and then foods after surgery. He also recommends avoiding the use of pain killers to speed recovery time. The availability of sugarless chewing gum is not in dispute. The story makes no claims for the novelty of the treatment. By indicating the meta-analysis is based on five previous studies, the article implies it’s been used before. The story does not draw excessively from the press release."
Example Output: Study: You can chew gum and get well at same time

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: Thomas Metzmacher was faced with the prospect of having to shut down his Frankfurt restaurant specializing in a traditional tart hard cider due to German regulations prohibiting groups of people from gathering amid the coronavirus pandemic. So he came up with a novel solution. After toying with the idea of a delivery service, he instead turned his half-timbered restaurant into a makeshift drive-thru. Now he is serving up schnitzel, fried potatoes and other German favorites — of course the tasty Aeppelwoi cider — to customers waiting in a long line of cars. “The restaurant had to close, nobody was allowed to sit inside anymore, so it was either give up or fight,” he said. “And I decided to fight.” Metzmacher’s Zum Lahmen Esel restaurant, which has been in operation since 1807, normally seats 200 people inside and another 200 in an outdoor garden. Now, cars drive up to a small booth in front of the restaurant, where one of Metzmacher’s 36 employees takes their order, and then pushes a plastic tub down a makeshift slide to the car’s window to take payment at a safe distance. Driving ahead, the customer gets their order in another tub pushed to their window. “It’s going great,” says Metzmacher. “My regulars are supporting me, they’re really happy I’m open.” Without people sticking around for a few more of the signature ciders, profit margins are low but Metzmacher says it’s better than nothing. “At least we’re carrying on and we’re continuing to work,” he says.
Example Output:
German restaurant takes novel approach to keep cider flowing.