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]: Even before a show based on the Chernobyl disaster renewed interest both on and off social media, one of the most vivid online reminders of the April 1986 nuclear reactor meltdown continued to circulate online.A Facebook post that was shared more than 36,000 times on the platform in December 2019 contains a photograph of shows one of the remnants of the meltdown alongside a short description:The photo above is the closest humanity has ever come to creating Medusa. If you were to look at this, you would die instantly.The image is of a reactor core lava formation in the basement of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. It’s called the Elephant’s Foot and weighs hundreds of tons, but is only a couple meters across.Oh, and regarding the Medusa thing, this picture was taken through a mirror around the corner of the hallway. Because the wheeled camera they sent up to take pictures of it was destroyed by the radiation. The Elephant’s Foot is almost as if it is a living creature.The post is a reprinting of a 2012 Tumblr post about the Elephant’s Foot, one that is accurate about the origin of the photograph and not far off from the truth about the consequences of being in the presence of the toxic mix of uranium, silicon dioxide, and other materials — which is still active. Dozens of workers died during the explosion and subsequent cleanup efforts due to acute radiation syndrome.As the science magazine Nautilus reported in 2013:After just 30 seconds of exposure, dizziness and fatigue will find you a week later. Two minutes of exposure and your cells will soon begin to hemorrhage; four minutes: vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. 300 seconds and you have two days to live.Other images of the Elephant’s Foot have also gained notoriety. They are believed to have been taken 10 years after the fatal meltdown by a man identified as Artur Korneyev:In 2014, Korneyev was interviewed by the New York Times for a story on the construction of a $1.5 billion structure that would cap airborne emissions from escaping the site of the former reactor:Artur Korneyev, 65, a radiation specialist, at his home in Slavutich. After the accident, his job was to locate radioactive fuel on site and determine radiation levels to limit the exposure of other workers.These days Mr. Korneyev works in the project management unit, but because of his health — he has cataracts and other problems related to his heavy radiation exposure during his first three years — he is no longer allowed inside the plant. “Soviet radiation,” he joked, “is the best radiation in the world.”The site of the reactor and the neighboring town of Pripyat were made open for tours by the public in 2011. In 2019 the pop culture site Consequence of Sound reported that the success of the HBO show Chernobyl, a dramatization of the fatal disaster, led to a 35 percent increase in tour bookings compared to 2018. But one of the side-effects of that increased attention was an influx of visits from social media “influencers,” who would post “sexy” photographs of themselves in the area.“If you visit, please remember that a terrible tragedy occurred there,” series creator Craig Mazin posted in response. “Comport yourselves with respect for all who suffered and sacrificed.”
[EX A]: "A photograph spreading online shows the ""Elephant's Foot"" lava flow at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster."

[EX Q]: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.
[EX A]: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

[EX Q]: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the edict in a televised address in which he also held out hope of implementing an “exit strategy” soon that would gradually loosen restrictions imposed to try to stem the spread of the virus. Netanyahu said a ban on inter-city travel would go into effect on Tuesday afternoon and end on Friday morning. On Wednesday evening, when roads are usually jammed with families traveling to large, festive seder dinners, all Israelis, including the country’s Arab minority, will be confined under the order to their homes until the next morning. “Every family will hold the seder alone, you will celebrate only with the limited number of family members now in your home,” Netanyahu said. Similar seder practices were expected in other parts of the world where people were urged to stay at home because of the virus. At the seder, participants recount with prayers, songs and a festive meal the exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. It is an intergenerational affair, with the youngest child at the table traditionally asking, “Why is this night different from all other nights of the year?” and elders then explaining why, while drinking holiday-proscribed glasses of wine. In Israel’s sombre modern-day reality, there have been nearly 9,000 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus and 57 people have died as a result. Under restrictions already in place, Israelis have been instructed by the government to venture no more than 100 metres (yards) from home, with the exception of those going to workplaces that are still open or to shop for groceries or medicine. Netanyahu noted much higher death tolls in other countries and said the numbers in Israel are a result of government measures to contain the outbreak. “There is a real possibility that if the positive trends continue we will gradually end the lockdown after the Passover holiday,” he said. Restrictions will be eased according to “the level of risk among the population,” he said, with those most vulnerable remaining in isolation longest. The government-imposed limitations have forced many businesses to close, sending unemployment soaring to 25%. Netanyahu has also been trying to form a national unity government with his centrist rival Benny Gantz, a former general and political newcomer. Neither Netanyahu nor Gantz secured a parliamentary majority after three inconclusive elections this past year. The veteran leader proposed a unity government to tackle the coronavirus, promising to step down as prime minister within an agreed period, with Gantz then taking over. Negotiations appeared to have been moving forward until they hit a snag late on Monday. Gantz’s party said there was a dispute over the make-up of the government committee for appointing judges. Political analysts had said a final deal was imminent.
[EX A]:
Israelis put on coronavirus lockdown for Passover holiday celebration.