TASK DEFINITION: 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'.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Donald Trump made a grab for blue collar Democrats by citing the anti-trade, anti-Hillary Clinton rhetoric of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. For his latest attack, he borrowed Sanders’ own words. ""As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs,’ "" Trump said in a speech about the economy delivered outside a recycling plant in western Pennsylvania. The presumptive Republican nominee quoted Sanders accurately (barring the Trumpian flourish emphasizing ""millions""). But Sanders’ original claim, which we investigated, wasn’t without faults. Clinton has largely supported free trade, though her position is more nuanced than Trump and Sanders suggest, she  The notion that ""millions, millions of jobs"" have been lost because of trade, however, is more debatable. Clinton’s position on free trade Sanders is consistently anti-free trade, and Trump has been outspoken in disapproval of deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Clinton’s views, however, seem to depend on the content of each agreement. Overall, Trump and Sanders have a point that she’s supported more trade deals than she’s opposed. As first lady, Clinton spoke favorably of the NAFTA, signed by President Bill Clinton. The deal, she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History, ""would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization."" During her 2000 Senate bid to represent New York, Clinton supported normalizing trade relations with China. Out of the 10 trade deals that came up for a vote when she was in the Senate, Clinton said yes to six, no to two, and skipped the votes on two (though she had given her vocal support). She also voted for legislation that included an amendment granting Vietnam normalized trade status. She was in favor of a deal with Jordan because of its ""internationally recognized enforceable labor standards,"" she explained in 2005, but she considered the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement ""a step backward."" As a presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton had varying opinions on several trade deals, and she changed her position on NAFTA. She called NAFTA ""a mistake"" and opposed pending deals with South Korea (out of concern for American carmakers), Colombia (because of labor rights abuses) and Panama (whose National Assembly president was a U.S. fugitive). She reiterated her support for free trade with Peru on the campaign trail, praising the country for its ""very strong labor and environmental protections."" As secretary of state in the pro-trade administration of President Barack Obama, Clinton walked back her opposition to three deals from her 2008 run and helped negotiate them. As a presidential candidate in 2016, she flip-flopped on her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Year Trade deal Clinton’s position 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement Supported in 1990s, against in 2007 2002 Trade Act of 2002* Voted against** 2003 Chile-United States Voted for 2003 Singapore-United States Voted for 2004 Australia-United States Voted for 2004 Morocco-United States Voted for 2005 Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement Voted against 2005 Bahrain-United States Voted for*** 2006 Oman-United States Voted for 2007 Peru-United States Didn’t vote, supported in 2007 2007 Jordan-United States Didn’t vote, supported in 2005 2011 Panama-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2011 Colombia-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2011 South Korea-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2015 Trans-Pacific Partnership Supported in 2010, against in 2015 * This deal is not included in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s list of free trade agreements, but contains many free trade provisions. ** This is a vote for ""fast track authority"" — allowing trade agreement to move through Congress without amendments or filibusters. *** The free trade agreement with Bahrain passed by unanimous consent, not a recorded roll call vote. Employment impact unclear The jury is still out on the impact of trade deals on employment, even after decades of debate. On one side, unions and some left-leaning think tanks often link American job losses to expanded trade. Labor advocates opposed the Chile and Singapore agreements, which they said in a 2003 report would kill an unspecified number of jobs. The liberal Economic Policy Institute, which Trump cited, has found that NAFTA has cost the United States over 800,000 jobs, and the South Korean deal cost about 60,000. In a 2014 report, the think tank reported that the United States has lost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013 to trade with China. Business groups, on the other hand, argue that trade deals actually boost employment. For example, a 2010 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the 14 trade deals in place in 2008 supported 5.4 million jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S-China Business Council and the Financial Times contend that the loss in manufacturing jobs were not due to trade with China so much as gains in technology and productivity, as well as the result of a more sophisticated economy. And in a recent fact-check, we found several nonpartisan reports demonstrating that NAFTA produced no significant job losses nor job gains. Analysis by economists at Tufts University and the University of Michigan projected no net impact on employment from the Chile, Singapore and South Korea deals. Our ruling Trump said, ""As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.’ "" He accurately recasted Sanders’ words, but that doesn’t make the attack any more correct. Out of the 10 trade deals Clinton could have voted on, she voted in favor of six and against two. On two other deals (with Peru and Jordan), she didn’t vote but did vouch for them. As for subsequent job losses, independent research has shown the impact of NAFTA, for example, to not be significant one way or the other for jobs. Trump’s claim is partially accurate and needs additional information." Claim: As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.’ 

SOLUTION: 1

PROBLEM: Paragraph: In May 2016, photographs and messages reproduced above began circulating on Facebook along with claims that lurking underneath labels of pricey salon-brand hair products purchased through discount retailers were cheaper, lower quality brands. Photographs show the CHI line of hair care products with T.J. Maxx price tag and the label half peeled away to show a bottle bearing a less expensive (and presumably lower-quality) hair care product. Most versions of the claim included an assertion that salon-brand hair products should only be bought at hair salons, not discount retailers. The rumors served as a tacit criticism of salon clientele who purchase product from third parties rather than from salons or stylists (who would earn commission and meet salon sales goals otherwise). A similar social media rumor maintained that eyelash extensions can cause “lash lice,” a story spread primarily by multi-level marketing salespeople hawking mascara. In another instance, salons and stylists spread a rumor that Pantene (one of the top-selling drugstore hair care brands) can be flammable in combination with popular hair-lightening treatments. Both rumors began with or were passed along by people invested in the sale of competing products at full price. T.J. Maxx said that the CHI products depicted were genuine: At T.J. Maxx, conducting our business with integrity means everything to us and we take pride in offering our customers great values on high quality brand-name products. We have looked into your concerns and can assure you that the contents of the bottle are authentic and are as described on the outer label. We have also confirmed with our supplier that its relabeling of the bottle was appropriate. We thank you for your ongoing patronage of our stores. CHI also responded our questions about the photographs. The company explained that the labeling was due in part to manufacturing fluctuations, as well as cutting back on unnecessary waste: Recently, several of our customers have noticed cans of CHI® products with labels covering up other products. We sincerely wish to clear up any confusion. The Egyptian Oil and French Oil and other cans you may have seen were originally another CHI® product brand we manufactured. Due to a legal challenge that arose concerning the new brand names and designs, we were forced to cease production. As a result of this, we were left with many empty cylinders. To avoid them taking up vital space in our warehouse but most importantly, adding unnecessary waste to landfills, we decided to uphold our environmentally conscious efforts that we have maintained since 1986. We felt we made the right decision by placing original CHI® labels over these cylinders and filling them with our CHI® formulas. Therefore, the product is authentically made by Farouk Systems with the correct CHI® label on them and product inside. We sincerely apologize for any confusion this may have caused our customers. One of the two viral photographs didn’t display a T.J. Maxx or Marshall’s price tag, strongly suggesting that the relabeled bottles were indeed not restricted to non-salon retail environments. CHI’s statement affirmed the relabeled bottles were in no way different than any other from the brand, whether purchased in a salon or a discount department store. In this instance, both the retailer and the manufacturer said that the product packaging was simply repurposed, but the contents remain authentic and identical to products sold in salons and other non-discount retail environments. (In instances where counterfeiting occurs, the company being impersonated is typically the first to object to dilution of their brand.) Claim: Retailers T.J. Maxx and Marshall's sell counterfeit salon products.

SOLUTION: 0

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The movements of Brazilians have been completely restricted in fewer than two dozen cities scattered across the vast nation of 211 million — even though Brazil’s death toll stands at more than 12,000, Latin America’s highest. While public health experts are demanding bolder action, most governors and mayors have not imposed mandatory stay-at-home orders. Their apparent reluctance comes amid Bolsonaro’s relentless message for Brazilians to defy regional and local public health efforts to stop the virus’ spread. Stricter lockdowns are needed because Brazilian doctors are now being forced to choose who lives and dies and triage situations could generate social unrest if they increase, said Miguel Lago, executive director of Brazil’s non-profit Institute for Health Policy Studies, which advises public health officials. “We need to avoid a total disaster,” he said. Lago said mandatory lockdowns across much of the country would help: “It is late in terms of avoiding hospital collapse, but certainly it isn’t too late to avoid a bigger catastrophe.” Brazil had more than 177,000 confirmed cases on Tuesday, with the actual figure believed to be much higher because of limited testing. Many intensive care hospital units are full and cemeteries are increasingly overwhelmed with bodies. Bolsonaro, who called the virus a “little flu,” has insisted for more than a month that governors are stoking economic carnage with voluntary quarantine recommendations and urges Brazilians to go about their everyday. He reiterated criticism of governors Tuesday for ignoring his decree that gyms, barbershops and beauty salons should be treated as essential services. Amid Bolsonaro’s rejection of coronavirus danger, most of the country’s 27 governors have criticized his stances but none have imposed mandatory statewide lockdown measures recommended by experts. Instead, the governors have either applied selective lockdowns in cities or deferred to mayors to make those decisions. Governors had been hoping the virus would not spread in Brazil’s warm climate, but their response is also a reflection of Brazil’s political landscape because the governors depend on mayors to endorse re-election campaigns. Many worry that imposing mandatory lockdowns could hurt local leaders in this year’s municipal election, decreasing support for incumbent governors in their 2022 campaigns, said Thiago de Aragão, director of strategy of the Arko Advice political consultancy. But as the death toll rose from less than 7,000 to more than 10,000 last week, local authorities began adopting stricter anti-virus measures. The riverside community of Tefe in the Amazon region was among the first, with a lockdown decree specifying criminal charges for residents leaving home except for visits to hospitals, pharmacies and supermarkets. The mayor imposed it because only about half of Tefe’s 60,000 residents complied with an earlier recommendation by the governor of Amazonas state to take virus precautions. Those who did not comply “think they’re immortal, that they won’t get it,” Tefe Mayor Normando Bessa de Sá said on Facebook. Over the next three days, the governors of the northern and northeastern states of Maranhao, Para and Ceara decreed lockdowns for their capital cities as intensive-care units filled with COVID-19 patients. Despite the new lockdowns, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo still don’t have mandatory stay-at-home-orders at the state or city level — even though they are the hardest hit places in Brazil. Lockdowns “should have been imposed at least three weeks ago, when the epidemic was already increasing, but not at this speed that it is now,” said Margareth Dalcolmo, a respiratory physician and researcher with the widely respected Oswaldo Cruz Foundation biological research group. “I gave that recommendation more than once,” said Dalcolmo, among the experts on a COVID-19 panel that advises Rio’s governor. Rio Gov. Wilson Witzel has decreed non-binding quarantine recommendations and commerce restrictions through the end of May. He pledged to make police available so the state’s 92 mayors can enact lockdowns, instead of imposing them himself. In another example of Brazil’s scattershot local lockdowns, Rio de Janeiro Mayor Marcelo Crivella on Monday prohibited non-residents from entering 11 neighborhoods and ordered the closure of all businesses except supermarkets and pharmacies in the teeming slums called favelas. “People still haven’t perceived the need to avoid gatherings, stay home,” Crivella complained. For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms including fever and cough. The risk of death is greater for the elderly and people with other health problems. The cities of Niteroi and Sao Goncalo near Rio on Monday authorized fines and criminal charges for violating stay-at-home orders. Niteroi police took the temperatures of those entering the city, and put a man and his two dogs inside a police van after he allegedly refused to show documents to justify being out of his home. In Sao Paulo state, Gov. João Doria last month urged but did not require residents to self-quarantine while shutting down schools and most businesses. Nearly 70% of the state’s 44 million people initially complied, but that dropped below 50% in recent weeks, according to cellphone carrier data provided by the state. Doria, a presidential hopeful, saw his popularity increase as he challenged Bolsonaro. But police stopped enforcing his recommendations after Bolsonaro criticized the handcuffing and detention of a middle-aged woman exercising in a park who resisted removal. With noncompliance rising, Doria said last week that “if we need to step up to a lockdown, we will not hesitate.” Sao Paulo’s mayor this week limited vehicles circulating in the city to 50% of the normal flow. Television images showed long lines of people entering crammed buses with standing room only in clear violation of social distancing guidelines. Public health analysts from the Imperial College London, whose COVID-19 research has guided global policymakers, last week called Brazil’s anti-virus efforts “partially successful.” “In the absence of the introduction of further control measures that will more strongly curb transmission, Brazil faces the prospect of an epidemic that will continue to grow exponentially,” they wrote. ___ Savarese reported from Sao Paulo Claim: Brazil cities lurch to lockdowns amid virus crisis red flags.

SOLUTION:
2