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 Input:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources records show that Tyco Fire Products discovered soil and well contamination on the Marinette manufacturer’s fire training property in 2013, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. The contamination involves a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are linked to cancer and other health issues. The company was found to have some of the highest known concentrations of the chemicals in groundwater and soil in Wisconsin, according to the records. In November 2017, Tyco, a Johnson Controls International unit, acknowledged that the chemicals had spread beyond its Marinette facility and suspended spraying foam products outdoors. The following month, the company started distributing bottled water to residents whose private wells may be affected by the contamination. Tyco tested 168 wells and 56 have shown evidence of the chemicals, the company said. State officials said Wisconsin law requires companies to immediately report pollution , but the company defended its actions by saying that little was known about PFAS at the time. “In 2013, there was not the level of awareness and information as there is today associated with PFOS/PFOA,” said Fraser Engerman, a spokesman for Johnson Controls International. But scientists have warned about the health impacts and other companies have phased out production of the chemicals for more than a decade. Tyco has also claimed that the company didn’t know about contamination beyond the property until 2016. “It wasn’t until 2016 that we had data that showed we had concentrations of these compounds at the edge of the property, so we then began the series of tests which led us to where we are today,” the company’s website states. Doug Oitzinger, the city’s former mayor, dismissed Tyco’s explanation. “This isn’t news to them,” he said. “They know that these pollutants have been judged an environmental danger .” Janell and Duane Goldsmith have twice tested their well water and found chemical contamination above the federal health advisory threshold. Duane Goldsmith has been diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor cancer and Janell Goldsmith had pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, according to a lawsuit filed in December. The couple’s two sons also have had developmental delays, the lawsuit states. “They’ve known about this for how long — and they have been using these chemicals?” Janell Goldsmith said. “You don’t expect it to happen to your family and to your community. So much crosses your mind.” ___ Information from: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, http://www.jsonline.com

Ex Output:
Records: Tyco knew of contamination 4 years before reporting.


Ex Input:
Since Nov. 1, South Carolina has recorded 86 reported cases of the contagious disease. State Epidemiologist Linda Bell said Monday that’s more than four times what state officials normally expect to see. Over the last 10 years, South Carolina averaged 19 reported cases of hepatitis A annually. Most of the new cases have occurred in Aiken County, and almost half of all cases involve individuals who reported drug use, Bell said. Still, the general population needn’t be overly concerned, she said. “But we are seeing cases higher that what we expect to see,” Bell said. “And so it’s important for us to do our prevention efforts early to reach those high-risk groups, get them vaccinated ... so that we can prevent” a severe outbreak. The State reports the Department of Health and Environmental Control is offering no-cost vaccines to high risk groups including drug users, homeless, formerly incarcerated and sexually-active gay men. Additionally, health officials recommend all children get two doses of the vaccine as part of their immunization schedule. Of the 86 reported cases in South Carolina, 59 have led to hospitalization and one resulted in death, the DHEC said. Hepatitis is a disease characterized by inflammation of the liver. It comes in many forms, including hepatitis A, B and C. As a result, individuals with chronic liver disease, like cirrhosis, are at increased risk of complications if infected and should be vaccinated. The virus-borne infection can be prevented by vaccination and is usually transmitted person-to-person through consumption of contaminated food or water, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibodies produced in response to hepatitis A infection last for life and protect against reinfection. Infection usually results in sickness in two to six weeks after exposure. Symptoms include fatigue, loss of appetite, stomach pain, nausea, and yellowing of the eyes and skin. Symptoms usually resolve within two months of infection, according to the CDC. State public health officials in February declared an outbreak in Aiken County after an employee at a second restaurant in Aiken tested positive for the virus, the DHEC said. Bell, though, stressed transmission by food or beverage is uncommon. “Most transmission in the United States is through person-to-person contact,” Bell said. “Good hygiene - diligently washing your hands - is a good way to prevent hepatitis A, as well as not sharing personal items,” including drug equipment, she said, adding the state has received reports of hepatitis A from people using various drugs, “everything from marijuana to meth.” Residents can schedule an appointment for a vaccination at their local health department by calling 855-472-3432 or going to http://bit.ly/2HhEsM8 . ___ Information from: The State, http://www.thestate.com

Ex Output:
South Carolina declares hepatitis outbreak.


Ex Input:
We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, “It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ.” It also says, “The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome.” The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, “There were no false-negative results with the new test.” We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study’s findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these: “In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won’t replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies,” says Mark I. Evans, MD,  director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. “The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndrome…Down syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance.” The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it’s a screening test. The distinction – and the significance of that – could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is “not ready for prime time….in a year or two, this test may be available.” The story does not establish the test’s novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, “In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 3–5% of the population.” This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way:  What is already known on this topic: Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA Its diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds: Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.” The story does not rely on a news release.

Ex Output:

Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome