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'.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Dr. George Flinn is well known in Memphis as a radiologist, radio station magnate and a big-spending, self-funding Republican political candidate who is running for Congress again this summer, this time in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Fewer know him as an inventor with patents on file in Washington, but that’s what he claims in a commercial he’s airing as he seeks to defeat 2010 GOP nominee Charlotte Bergmann. The winner in Thursday’s Aug. 2 primary will face the winner of the primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen and school board member Tomeka Hart. The commercial boldly claimsthat Flinn is ""a doctor whose patents in ultrasound have revolutionized modern medicine, whose innovations have saved lives throughout the world."" Based on the scant evidence we were able to discover and our lack of deep knowledge in the history of ultrasound technology, we are narrowing the focus to whether Flinn does indeed hold patents in ultrasound technology that might have revolutionized modern medicine. The only Flinn patent we were able to find was awarded on July 3, 2007, and it is not for ultrasound technology. Flinn and two others received patent No. 7,238,370 B2 for their invention of a substance made of pumice and an aqueous surfactant (like a detergent) that experiments showed increased skin thickness and gave it a ""more youthful appearance."" It was also tested on shaved guinea pigs. Its claim is that it prevents and treats ""photoaging"" of skin. Whatever the usefulness of this substance, we’re comfortable concluding it has not revolutionized modern medicine. It took Flinn’s campaign more than a week to provide information about other innovations the campaign believes backs up Flinn’s claims. OnThursday evening, July 26, campaign manager Kristi Stanley sent along three acknowledgement letters from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirming receipt of applications for patents. Not patents, but applications for patents. The letters state that the information Flinn provided (which was not provided to PolitiFact) ""will be examined for patentability."" The letters also extend Flinn the right under federal law to seek a patent in foreign countries. Nothing that Stanley provided indicates Flinn sought foreign patents. She did note that Flinn also was involved in obtaining patents while employed by the National Institutes of Health that are held, not by him, but by that government agency. So let’s look at the three patent applications, according to the initial letters from the Patent and Trademark Office dated in May and June of this year. One (Customer No. 062439) is for ""Chemotherapy Treatment Using Microspheres to Deliver a High Concentration of a Drug to a Tumor."" The letter provided by Stanley provides no other information about the patent itself, just details about Flinn’s rights. It does not appear to deal with ultrasound. The second is titled ""Process for an Improved Galactogram Procedure,"" with, again, no supporting description or detail. The third: ""Color Encoding Method for Ultrasound Images."" Again: No detail. We could explain that galactography is the examination of the breast by mammography and, specifically, examination of the milk ducts, or that microspheres are particles smaller than one millimeter in diameter. But it seems we can make short work of this analysis by saying that, although Flinn claims to deserve the patent for them, these are not patented inventions and he only sought them after he was deeply involved in this congressional campaign. If the technologies are being employed in medicine to demonstrative salubrious effect, it isn’t because they are his patents because the patents have not yet been granted. When contacted initially, the campaign indicated it was eager for us to examine the claim but did not provide the kind of supportive documentation that would establish its veracity. Instead, the documentation establishes the application for patents. But Flinn’s commercials flatly claim he his patents in ultrasound technology revolutionized modern medicine, when the record shows he he only applied for patents several months after this congressional campaign was under way. That kind of deliberate deception of voters earns this claim a" Claim: "George Flinn Says his ""patents in ultrasound have revolutionized modern medicine."
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: "Health insurance has emerged as a defining issue in the Georgia Senate race, and Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue declared that there is one angle where he can’t be attacked. ""I’ve always believed in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Period,"" Perdue tweeted Aug. 18. ""Anyone who says otherwise just isn’t telling the truth."" The campaign ad attached to the tweet adds, ""Health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."" That is a sweeping policy — guaranteed coverage for anyone, with no penalty for a preexisting condition. If that’s Perdue’s position now, it doesn’t jibe with his record as a lawmaker. He’s voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and a bill he cosponsored to guarantee coverage fails to match the ironclad protections under that law. Perdue makes no bones about opposing the ACA, which contains several interlocking provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. He voted to repeal it in 2015 and backed the Senate’s failed repeal-and-replace effort in 2017. Perdue’s campaign said that it’s possible to be against Obamacare, and in favor of patient protections. It said, ""Perdue co-sponsored legislation to ensure preexisting conditions are covered at no additional cost to those patients."" That bill, called the Protect Act, never came to a vote in the Senate and doesn’t match the ACA’s guarantees. The current law blocks insurers from using any eligibility rule, list of covered services or pricing to deny anyone coverage. The Protect Act does say that insurance companies can’t deny coverage based on ""any preexisting condition."" But it gives a carrier the option to deny certain coverage, if ""it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately."" Since the bill doesn’t define what that clause means, it leaves open the possibility that carriers could use it to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all of their policies. To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that’s a big loophole. ""Insurers could exclude someone’s preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,"" Hoffman told us in 2018 when the bill was first introduced. ""That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers preexisting condition protection."" Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us concerns about loopholes are reasonable. ""Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,"" Whitlock said in 2018. ""If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that’s probably true."" Hoffman notes that the Protect Act’s language against insurers discriminating based on genetic information also concerns her. The bill says carriers ""shall not request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to any individual prior to such individual's enrollment."" But the bill says information collected incidentally can be used by insurers. That could happen, for example, when an employee inadvertently reveals details on a questionnaire, despite being told not to include information that can be linked back to their DNA. Insurers can’t use that information for setting premiums, but Hoffman says it could shape the list of covered maladies. ""If an insurer comes across genetic information incidentally, it seems to me that they could exclude any related conditions,"" Hoffman warned. ""This loophole could be huge considering the amount of incidental collection and how broadly it is construed."" The bill has other holes: for instance, permitting insurers to charge women more than men. Perdue’s stance on short-term health insurance plans also raises issues. These plans offer limited coverage that’s intended to tide people over when they’re between jobs. They don’t need to follow the strict rules of the ACA. They don’t have to cover the package of essential benefits under the law and they can exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they were limited to 90 days’ coverage. The Trump administration extended that to 364 days, with the option to renew them for up to three years. Perdue voted against a 2018 resolution to oppose Trump’s expansion of short-term plans. The measure failed by one vote. The Perdue campaign said that Obamacare isn’t the only way to take care of people. ""The best way to protect those with preexisting conditions, lower costs for all Georgians, and expand access to coverage is through free market solutions,"" the campaign said in a statement. The campaign noted that many counties have only one insurance company offering coverage. It argues that if more companies found it profitable to move into those areas, competition would improve the options for consumers. Perdue said that his policy is that ""health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period."" Perdue opposes the Affordable Care Act and weighed in on the side of short-term health plans that lack some of the ACA’s strong protections for people with preexisting conditions. Perdue’s bill to maintain those protections contains loopholes that insurance companies could use to avoid covering certain conditions. Perdue’s promise is sweeping and absolute. The policies he has backed offer some limited protections, but don’t match that promise." Claim: David Perdue Says his policy is that “health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.”
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: The article does not mention the cost of hormone therapy or compare its cost against that of other therapies. Since the story suggests that treatment might be helpful in younger women with severe hot flashes, cost is relevant. The article suggests that hormone therapy might help younger women control hot flashes. But the primary subject of both the Newsweek story and the new research is harms of therapy, not benefits, so we consider this criterion not applicable in this case. The Newsweek story summarizes the previously published analyses of the Women’s Health Initiative trials, which found that women who received hormone therapy had a slightly higher risk of heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and breast cancer than women who received placebo. It reports new data on the harms of hormone therapy in women who have hot flashes and night sweats. However, the story does not report the frequency of these potential harms, making it difficult for readers to judge their risks. Some readers with bad hot flashes and night sweats might think the risks of heart attack and death are too small to worry about, others might not. (See “Comments” below.) The article fails to alert the reader to the provisional quality of the new findings. As the researchers note in their published manuscript, the current subgroup and secondary analyses are “exploratory” and “not statistically significant.” In other words, they represent very interesting hypotheses for further exploration. The also demonstrate how little we know about menopausal symptoms and their management. The news story says only that the analyses “had some technical issues.” According to the story, hot flashes might be “dangerous” because they might predict heart disease. Thus, the article adds another normal feature of aging (postmenopausal hot flashes) to the list of experiences that are not only distressing and uncomfortable but also apparently perilous to a woman’s health. Unfortunately, the article fails to note that none of the research findings are statistically significant. Hot flashes might be important, or they might not. The article cites the lead author of the new study, who is also the head of the Women’s Health Initiative. But a second source not associated with the research might have added a valuable and different perspective, perhaps pointing out that the evidence is weak and does not warrant action by women or their health care providers. The story mentions one option to hormone therapy for managing difficult symptoms of menopause—doing nothing. The current evidence suggests there are few other good options. But there are several strategies for preventing and treating heart disease and stroke, including exercise and diet, as well as monitoring risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol. The story does not mention availability, but most readers affected by hot flashes will be familiar with hormone therapy. The article accurately suggests that hormone therapy is not a new treatment. The story did not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Menopause: A flash of concern
Example Output:
0