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:
"Bounciest Democrat on November's statewide ballot? It might be Hank Gilbert, making his second hard charge for state agriculture commissioner versus Todd Staples, the Republican who topped him four years ago. Gilbert, ever prowling for issues, recently trumpeted that the Texas Department of Agriculture is looking at buying thousands of stress balls -- squeezable toys. He said in a Sept. 24 press release: ""Make no mistake, Texans love their balls: footballs, baseballs, basketballs, and soccer balls. But 300,000 stress balls? It seems a little extreme, but that's the quantity of grape, barbell, and book-shaped polyurethane stress balls the Texas Department of Agriculture could be spending taxpayer dollars on...""  Really? To our inquiry, Gilbert's campaign provided Web links to the agriculture agency's June request for bids as well as a September post on a state website indicating that a $99,000 contract to provide promotional materials was awarded to a Massachusetts company, Oceans Promotions. We downloaded the June 29 bid-request package from a site for state requisitions overseen by the state comptroller's office. The package shows the department was seeking bids to provide up to 300,000 stress ""relievers,"" which we're guessing are not balls because they're not round. Precisely, the package says, the agency sought bids to make ""promotional items with logo imprints to follow through on (the) TDA Food and Nutrition Texans Bring It Campaign,"" with the items to include grape-shaped stress relievers with ""Texans Bring It"" written on them or ""Eating Right,"" which would be made of polyurethane and be two inches high by three inches wide. The package says a second set of stress relievers, each one called ""Dumbbell,"" would be imprinted ""Texans Bring It"" and ""Exercise"" and be five inches high by 1.8 inches in diameter. A third stress reliever would be imprinted ""Book"" and ""Texans Bring It,"" according to the bid package, while other promotional items would include pencils, buttons and bumperstickers. The package says the bids were sought for various quantities, starting from 2,500 and topping out at 100,000 each. It electronically links to a Branders.com site showing what the agency wanted the stress relievers to look like (our interpretation: bunches of purple grapes). Is all this a real deal? To our inquiry, Bryan Black, Staples' spokesman, replied via e-mail: ""An invitation for bid was issued for these federally funded educational items to reduce the $5.8 billion avoidable health care expenditures, paid by taxpayers, associated with overweight and obesity health problems."" We followed up with Black, asking if it's accurate to conclude that up to 300,000 of the stress relievers are being purchased. We also wondered why the purchase was being made. Black said he'd limit his comment to his e-mailed statement. Surely the agency would pipe up if Gilbert got its purchase plans wrong."

Ex Output:
Hank Gilbert Says the Texas Department of Agriculture seeks to purchase up to 300,000 promotional stress balls.


Ex Input:
The story did not discuss the costs of PSA tests or provide estimates of the costs for following up an increase in PSA with a biopsy. These are significant cost issues, which warranted at least a line in the story. The story didn’t quantify the potential reduction in biopsies. The competing AP story was much better on this point, reporting that using rising PSA levels, 1 in 7 men would have a prostate biopsy as compared with 1 in 20 men based solely on high PSA level. This suggests that change in PSA level results in 13/20 unnecessary prostate biopsies. The story could have provided more detail on some of the possible complications resulting from prostate biopsies. It did mention anxiety from tracking PSA levels over time.

Ex Output:
Rapid Rise in PSA Levels a Poor Predictor of Prostate Cancer: Study


Ex Input:
The story lists the costs of this screening tool and notes the cost may not always be covered by insurance. The story also notes the cost to public health spending for additional, and sometimes unnecessary, diagnostic tools. The story provides a good review of the benefits of MRI screening for women at high risk of breast cancer and breast cancer recurrence. The story does an excellent job detailing the pros and cons of MRI screenings for breast cancers in high risk women, and for any woman who is considering this as an adjunct to, or in lieu of mammography. What is particularly noteworthy here is the discussion of the value of early screening and treatment, and whether it is finding cancer that would cause harm. This is not a concept often found in stories like this. The story lists data that 5 percent to 25 percent of MRI tests (not just those for breast cancer) are wrong, causing psychological distress and unnecessary treatment. The story describes the trial design of the MRI screening study cited and provides quantitative evidence from this trial. The story also notes the false positive rates of MRI screenings, but does not list the false positive or false negative rates for the study cited. The story does not engage in disease mongering or test mongering. The story notes who might benefit from the additional screening – only those women at higher risk – and provides the downside to overzealous screening for breast cancer in lower-risk women. The story also notes annual incidence of breast cancer and the estimated risk of a woman developing breast cancer during her lifetime. The story again does an excellent job citing several clinicians and researchers not affiliated with the American Cancer Society or the recently published article in NEJM on the benefit of additional screening in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. These sources provide balance and sound, evidence-based advice on MRI screening for breast cancer. The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes the follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) and the medical decisions that must be made if there is a suspicion of cancer. The story mentions that MRI screening should be performed at centers that also do breast biopsies. These centers may not be available to all women. The story also notes the cost of MRI screenings, which may not be covered by insurance, making them unavailable for some women. The story reports on evidence  published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting women diagnosed with breast cancer should consider having their other breast screened via MRI. According to the source article, mammography and physical examination missed cancer in about 3% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The story also reports that the  American Cancer Society has recently revised screening guidelines and recommendations that women at higher risk of breast cancer and women whose breasts are difficult to read via mammograms undergo MRI screening. The story includes a great deal of independent reporting and does not appear to be driven by any news release.

Ex Output:

MRIs urged in breast cancer detection