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'.

Paragraph: The advent of various technologies enabling contact with emergency services (or easier identification during such an event) has not quelled interest in core functions of long-standing institutions such as 911 and the Emergency Alert System (EAS). A side effect of the advancement of gadgets and networks into our daily lives is lingering concern those devices will one day fail us; even the cellular phone was (in the not-so-distant past) eyed with some skepticism by first responders. Accordingly, the notion police or paramedics are best summoned via landline due to its long-developed and trustworthy capabilities remains despite the popularity and ubiquitousness of mobile phones. Landlines are are thought to make it easier to track down a person in need of assistance — and in films or on television, mobiles seem to regularly fail in moments of high tension (clip contains some profanity):  Various versions of that rumor have circulated in both the United States and the United Kingdom, dating back to at least 2006. The rumor’s functionality exists on at least two levels: one cautioning against inadvertently summoning the police (leading at best to embarrassment and at worst, actual harm), and another reassuring people (inaccurately) that even if you cannot complete a call for help, the cavalry will eventually arrive all the same. The latter notion is one where belief in the claim presents a risk, suggesting that one need only knock a landline off its receiver to eventually summon first responders. We contacted the Federal Communications Commission, which referred us to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA): As The Voice of 9-1-1™, NENA is on the forefront of all emergency communications issues. The association serves its members and the greater public safety community as the only professional organization solely focused on 9-1-1 policy, technology, operations, and education issues. With more than 9,000 members in 48 chapters across the United States and around the globe, NENA promotes the implementation and awareness of 9-1-1, as well as international three-digit emergency communications systems … Through the association’s efforts to provide effective and efficient public safety solutions, NENA strives to protect human life, preserve property, and maintain the security of our communities. A NENA representative told us he was unfamiliar with the rumor, adding that to the best of his knowledge a “presented dial tone will time out and the line will become inaccessible to inbound calls.”  (Or, to put it another way, a “busy signal.”)  Until the mid-2000s, mobile phones were largely considered a secondary form of contact to be used sparingly in the absence of a landline, and fixed-location phones were often inadvertently or (perhaps more often) deliberately left “off the hook” to disable incoming calls — a not uncommon occurrence, as one New York Times writer lamented in 2012: But there was also another part of the Friday night ritual — very likely the most important part. “Nick, go and take the phone off the hook,” my father would command. I’d excitedly rush into the hallway, lift up the phone receiver, and toss it to the floor. Then, I’d race back into the living room before showtime. As the opening credits for the movie began, the phone left off the hook would echo in the hall: Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep … and then, silence. No way to answer the phone, and no way to leave a message, meant that no one could get through. And rightly so: it was movie night, after all. Claim: A landline disengaged from its cradle will eventually self-dial 911.
0

Paragraph: Costs are not mentioned but we’ll let this pass since it’s reasonable to assume the approximate pricing of most of the dairy products tested are widely known. Main findings mentioned include: Readers are given no sense of just how much the risk is increased or decreased in these groups. The only data provided from the study is this: The risk of CHD was 26% lower in those men who consumed the highest amount of low fat (<3.5%) fermented dairy (compared to the lowest consumption group). It would be difficult for many readers to put that number into context without knowing how much low-fat/fermented dairy was consumed. Some data contained in the study might have helped put the numbers in context. According to the tables in the published manuscript, there is a modest reduction from 14 CHD events per 1,000 person years in the low intake group (of fermented dairy) to 10 CHD events per 1,000 person years in the high intake group (of fermented dairy). Since readers might interpret this study’s results as supporting consuming more fermented dairy (much of which contains saturated fats), not mentioning the potential harms of consuming too much saturated fats is a shortcoming. There are three major limitations of this study that aren’t mentioned. First, this is a prospective cohort study that can’t completely control for other health variables in the subjects being responsible for some of the changes observed. Second, the use of a food questionnaire (even with some supervision by nutritionists) is not a completely reliable way to document dairy intake; especially when trying to pinpoint amounts and subtypes of dairy. Finally, the cohort studied (Eastern Finnish men, ages 42-60) is a very specific subgroup. This limits the generalizability of the results. The news release addresses none of this. In the published manuscript the authors describe differences in smoking rates and other dietary patterns in the men who consumed more or less of the dairy types. These other differences could have accounted for all of the differences in this observational study. No disease mongering is noted in this news release. Nor does the release provide any context on the prevalence of  coronary heart disease. Funding for the study is not mentioned. Review of the authors does not reveal any major conflicts of interest. The headline suggests fermented dairy products may protect against heart attacks, but does not mention any other common sense steps that may be protective. Exercise, not smoking, and a prudent plant-based diet are other habits known to be associated with lower risk. Fermented dairy products are widely available and the news release does clearly outline several types. The news release claims that the new research gives more weight to earlier study findings. It states: “earlier studies have shown that fermented dairy products have more positive effects on blood lipid profiles and on the risk of heart disease than other dairy products.” And that “The new study provides further evidence on the health benefits that fermented dairy products may have over non-fermented ones.” Links to the earlier studies would have been helpful. As yet, it’s still speculative to claim that fermented dairy products lower the risk of CHD. No overtly unjustifiable language was used. We appreciate mention of the fact that the possible mechanisms for explaining the study’s findings are not completely understood. Claim: Fermented dairy products may protect against heart attack
0

Paragraph: "On Nov. 27, 2013, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group used a mass email to promote protests that were planned against Walmart stores for two days later -- Black Friday. The demonstrations aimed to ""expose Wal-Mart’s shameful labor practices and support workers,"" according to One Wisconsin Now, which then made this claim: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" That reminded us of a March 2011 claim by filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore. He said in a Madison speech that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Based on online hits, it became one of our most popular fact-checks ever. So we wondered about the Walmart claim. Wealth, not income In the days before and after Black Friday, leaders no less prominent than President Barack Obama and Pope Francis decried the extent of income disparity in the United States and around the world. Obama called the growing income gap a ""defining challenge of our time."" The pope said that while the earnings of a minority ""are growing exponentially, so, too, is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."" Walmart, of course, is a big target. According to Forbes, as of May 2013 the international retailer had $469 billion in sales and 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million in the United States. The corporation has been criticized for low wages; and in December 2012, PolitiFact National rated as Mostly  a claim that more Walmart employees are on Medicaid and food stamps than other companies. But let’s be clear up front: Although income and wealth are related, they’re not the same. Wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth -- the value of a person’s assets minus liabilities. So, things like savings and retirement accounts, minus what is owed on a home mortgage, credit cards, etc. That means a person with heavy debt can have little wealth, or negative wealth, even while earning a six-figure income. One more point before we get to the wealth figures. Walmart was founded by the late Sam Walton, who opened the first store in Arkansas in 1962. Walmart incorporated in 1969 and became a publicly traded company a year later. So, Wal-Mart is not family owned, but rather owned by its stockholders; on the other hand, according to Bloomberg and other news reports, the Walton family members still have control of the company, owning about half of the shares. Group's evidence Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's executive director, told us his evidence to back his group’s claim is a July 2012 article by economist Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the liberal Economics Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. Bivens wrote that in 2010, the wealth of six Walton family heirs was $89.5 billion, 22 percent higher than in 2007. Meanwhile, the median wealth of American families in 2010 was $77,300, nearly 39 percent lower than three years earlier. (Median wealth refers to the American family that is exactly wealthier than half of all families and less wealthy than half.) As for measuring one against the other, Bivens said the Walton family wealth in 2010 was as large as the wealth of the bottom 48.8 million families in the United States, or 41.5 percent of all American families. Rounded up, 41.5 percent would be 42 percent, the figure One Wisconsin Now claims. But let's keep shopping around a little. Similar claim It turns out that a statement nearly identical to the one made by One Wisconsin Now was uttered in July 2012 by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. Sanders said the Walton family owns ""more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America,"" a claim PolitiFact National rated . Our colleagues found that Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, compared the Waltons’ cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. That survey was published in August 2012. Allegretto found that the Waltons’ wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families. The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population. But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth: No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion. A note before we close: Allegretto told us the housing crisis is a key reason that the gap between the Walton family wealth and the wealth of other American families has grown. More Americans were left with ""negative wealth"" because they lost their biggest asset -- their home -- and often significant amounts of their savings, as well, she said. Our rating One Wisconsin Now wrote: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" For comparison purposes, the latest data available, for 2010, the figure is 41.5 percent. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website." Claim: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.

2