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 Q]: "U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is continuing his pointed attacks against Republican opponent Daniel Webster, and Webster's stance on women's issues. Only this time, he's ditching the lines about religious fanaticism and the comparisons to the Taliban. Grayson, a Democrat from Orlando, caught flak for airing an ad that compared Webster's beliefs to those of the Taliban, and for distorting Webster's words in a speech Webster gave to a Christian group. Grayson played clips in a 30-second ad called ""Taliban Dan Webster"" that showed Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. But an unedited clip of the speech showed that Webster was in fact telling husbands to love their wives. The distortion, which earned a False rating from PolitiFact Florida, gave Webster's campaign national attention (including tweets of support from Sarah Palin) and helped him raise more than $100,000 in 48 hours, his campaign said. In response, Grayson released a toned-down version of the ""Taliban Dan"" ad on Oct. 6, 2010, called ""The Facts."" Gone are the terrorists holding machine guns, the people burning American flags and the women wearing burqas. Also gone are references to religious fanaticism, Iran and the Bible. (Gone, too, we found, is the ""Taliban Dan Webster"" ad from Grayson's YouTube website. The video is now marked private.) Here's a transcript of the new ad: Daniel Webster's Washington backers are attacking Alan Grayson on women's issues. The facts on Webster's record:  Fact: Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships. Fact: Webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home. Fact: Webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child. Those are the facts. Don't let Daniel Webster make the laws we will have to live with. In another item, we're analyzing the claim that Webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home. In this fact check, we'll focus on the first ""Fact"" -- that Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships. It's a slightly different take on a claim in the first ad when Grayson claimed that Webster ""wants to make divorce illegal,"" even for abused women. Both claims track back to a piece of legislation Webster introduced as a member of the state House in 1990. That year, Webster authored HB 1585, a bill that ""creates a form of marriage known as 'covenant marriage,' which may be dissolved only on grounds of adultery."" Florida law then and now allows married couples to divorce if a court finds that the marriage is ""irretrievably broken."" It's a common standard throughout the country, often called no-fault divorce. The term can be interpreted broadly and critics say the standard of proof makes divorce too easy. Webster's legislation sought to make getting a divorce more difficult, at least for couples that voluntarily entered the covenant marriage. Here's what he proposed. Men and women would have the option on their application for a marriage license to elect a covenant marriage. Under terms of the covenant marriage agreement, the husband- and wife-to-be would have to have their parents' permission and attend premarital counseling by a member of the clergy or a marriage counselor before proceeding. As part of their marriage license, the husband and wife would then have to sign notarized documents declaring:  ""I, (insert name), do hereby declare my intent to enter in Covenant Marriage. I do so with the full understanding that a Covenant Marriage may not be dissolved except by reason of adultery. I have attended premarital counseling in good faith and understand my responsibilities to the marriage. I promise to seek counsel in times of trouble. I believe that I have chosen my life-mate wisely and have disclosed to him or her all facts that may adversely affect his or her decision to enter in this covenant with me."" Once a couple agreed to a covenant marriage, the only way they could get a divorce is for adultery. That means physical or sexual abuse was not grounds for a divorce. Webster's legislation went nowhere in Florida -- Democrats controlled the state House in 1990, and the bill never came up for a vote -- but it did help launch the movement for covenant marriage nationwide. Three states -- Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona -- adopted a version of Webster's law, though the laws on the books in those states were all less restrictive than what Webster proposed in Florida, said Alan J. Hawkins, a professor of Family Life at Brigham Young University and an expert on covenant marriage. In his first ad, ""Taliban Dan Webster,"" Grayson said that Webster ""wants to make divorce illegal,"" even for abused women. But as our research proves, Webster's bill wouldn't make all divorce illegal. Rather it would make divorce more difficult, but not impossible, for couples who chose to form a covenant marriage. Even couples who chose Webster's form of covenant marriage had a small window out for adultery. It appears the Grayson campaign listened. In his new ad, ""The Facts,"" Grayson says ""Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships."" In 1990, Webster sponsored HB 1585, which would create a new form of marriage called covenant marriage. If women agreed to form a covenant marriage, they would not be allowed to divorce because of physical or sexual abuse. The only out under Webster's legislation was adultery."
[EX A]: Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships.

[EX Q]: Five cases of H7N9 bird flu infections have been diagnosed in central Anhui province since Dec. 8, and two people have died, state media reported. In Shanghai, officials said this week that a man was diagnosed with H7N9 and is being treated in a city hospital. Another case has been reported in Xiamen in coastal Fujian province, where poultry sales have been halted. In rural Jinzhai county in Anhui province, local officials on Thursday announced a two-week closure of a meat market after a shopkeeper was diagnosed with H7N9. The provincial government also issued a warning on social media urging residents to avoid buying and slaughtering live chickens themselves. A major H7N9 bird flu outbreak in humans first struck China in March 2013, killing more than 40 people and devastating the poultry industry. The strain is less virulent than the H5N1 strain that the World Health Organization says has killed more than 370 people.
[EX A]: Bird flu infects 7 people in China this month, killing 2.

[EX Q]: "The news story does not mention costs, but a discussion of cost is relatively unimportant in the context of this story. The article says that CPR in any form ""may double the rate of survival from cardiac rest."" According to a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, this means that “we can save tens of thousands of lives.”  Later in the story the spokesperson is reported as saying that when more people use CPR in cities such as Seattle, survival rates have jumped to as high as 30%. An AHA scientific statement says cities such as Seattle have reported survival of “more than 15%.” It adds that hands-only CPR and other changes (e.g. dispatcher-assisted ""telephone"" CPR) could save ""thousands of additional lives"" every year."" This mix of relative and absolute estimates suggest there is surely some real benefit to increasing the use of CPR, but the precise amount of that benefit remains a bit fuzzy. The news article explains that when CPR is performed with chest compressions only (without mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) the main harm is rib fractures induced by energetic chest thumping. Although the story mentions that ""3 major studies published last year"" provide evidence to support the new AHA recommendations on CPR, it fails to discuss the quality of this evidence. The studies comparing survival after bystanders’ use of hand-only vs. standard CPR are necessarily observational. The story could have explained the possible limitation of such studies. The article explains that a tiny minority of people who need CPR actually receive it. It also reassures readers that untrained bystanders can perform CPR and potentially save lives. The story does not exaggerate the problem of untreated cardiac arrest. The article cites three sources, two of them associated with the American Heart Association (which developed the new guidelines) and one an apparently independent expert who supports the guidelines. The article discusses hands-only and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and explains that these are used while bystanders await other options—usually treatment by emergency medical personnel and/or automated external defibrillator and, ultimately, hospital medical staff. The news article makes it clear that virtually anyone can perform hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It requires no devices or drugs. The major barrier to treatment appears to be fear–of harm to the victim or rescuer, and/or and fear of failing to perform CPR correctly. The article points out that CPR has been taught in first-aid classes for more than 40 years. There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a press release."
[EX A]:
Hands-only CPR greatly increases survival odds