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 study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.
Example Output: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

Example Input: The Kate Spade New York Foundation said in a statement Wednesday it is donating $200,000 to The Jed Foundation, which partners with schools to strengthen mental health programs. The fashion brand will match public donations to JED from Wednesday through June 12, up to $100,000, at jedfoundation.org/katespade. The donations follow money already given to other organizations, including the Crisis Text Line. Anna Bakst, brand president and CEO of Kate Spade New York, said the company hopes to encourage more conversation, education and research around mental health. Spade killed herself June 5, 2018, at 55, after years of battling depression and anxiety.
Example Output: Kate Spade New York fulfills $1 million mental health pledge.

Example Input: Both warnings are true. On September 18, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded its warning about spinach, telling consumers not to eat any raw spinach, not just pre-packaged spinach as had initially been announced. The FDA also announced that it’s probe into the sources of spinach contaminated with a strain of E.coli bacterium had been expanded to other companies. On September 15, 2006, the FDA had announced that Natural Selection Foods of San Juan Bautista, California was recalling all of its products that contain spinach that have “best if used by” dates of August 17, 2006 through October 1, 2006 The FDA is continuing to investigate whether any other brands are involved. According to an FDA release, “Natural Selection Foods, LLC brands include: Natural Selection Foods, Pride of San Juan, Earthbound Farm, Bellissima, Dole, Rave Spinach, Emeril, Sysco, O Organic, Fresh Point, River Ranch, Superior, Nature’s Basket, Pro-Mark, Compliments, Trader Joe’s, Ready Pac, Jansal Valley, Cheney Brothers, Coastline, D’Arrigo Brothers, Green Harvest, Mann, Mills Family Farm, Pro*Act, Premium Fresh, Snoboy, The Farmer’s Market, Tanimura & Antle, President’s Choice, Cross Valley, and Riverside Farms. These products include spinach and any salad with spinach in a blend, both retail and food service products. Products that do not contain spinach are not part of this recall.” The FDA said that 109 cases of illness had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control including one death and 14 cases of what is called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a form of kidney failure. States included in the warning include: California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The FDA said the affected products were also distributed to Canada and Mexico. The other story was focused on Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Dateline show aired in April, 2006. When more than 10 cases of sick people with similar symptoms showed up within three days in September, 2005, a public health investigation was launched. The Minnesota Department of Public Health speculated that the sicknesses were food-related. One of the investigators suspected E.coli because of the symptoms of abdominal cramps and severe, bloody diarrhea. The problem was that E.coli poisoning was more commonly associated with eating contaminated and improperly cooked meat. One of the foods that most of the sick people had eaten was salads made from bagged lettuce. When a public health warning was issued about the salads, one of the victims called investigators from his hospital room and said he still had a partially-eaten bag in his refrigerator. That lettuce was tested and became the first evidence that the E.coli had come from the pre-packaged salads. The odd thing was that the bacterium was found in the lettuce, not just on it. As a result of that 2005 outbreak, the Dole company issued a voluntary recall for the “American Blend” and “Classic Romaine” packaged salads. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also issued a nationwide health alert in October, 2005, about the particular Dole salads implicated in the outbreak. According to Dateline, 26 people from three states got ill, some of them seriously. There were no known deaths and there have not been any repeats of the problem. Updated 9/18/06 Comments
Example Output:
 There are a couple of stories about this. One warning says that a documentary on Dateline TV showed that E.coli bacteria were found in pre-packaged bags of salad and that the Dole company has issued a recall on some bags. The other from September of 2006 says the Food and Drug Administration has issued an alert that a strain of E.coli bacterium has been found in several U.S. states and that pre-packaged bags of spinach are suspect.