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.

Input: Consider Input: A skier takes a jump during sunny winter weather at the Swiss mountain area of Hoch-Ybrig, south of Zurich, February 23, 2011. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann Lisa Wheeler, a New York-based fitness instructor, believes it’s never too late to get in shape to make skiing more enjoyable and safe. But don’t overdo it. “Do some basic strength training for the legs, core and arms,” said Wheeler, fitness program director for DailyBurn, an online workout site. “But if you haven’t done anything, dial it back a little.”   Wheeler recommends lunges to strengthen the quadriceps, the long muscles in the front of the thigh. “Lunges are quad-dominant and skiing is very quad dominant because your knees are bent and you’re going downhill,” she said. “And lunges also work the hamstrings and glutes,” she explained, referring to the large muscles that form the buttocks. Wheeler thinks the novice can forgo jumping or hopping lunges and concentrate instead on matrix lunges, basically stepping to and pushing off different directions across the range of motion. “For the last-minute person I recommend taking it easy,” she said. Wheeler said people think of skiing as going in one direction, downhill, and neglect to prepare their hips and core for the considerable demands of the activity. “If you analyze skiing there’s a lot of rotation and lateral movement of the hips,” she said. “I would do some core exercises, such as planks, and rotational movements with the medicine ball,” she said. “Because going down the slopes your body is turning, your hips are turning.”   Jessica Matthews of the American Council on Exercises suggests exercises that mimic the activity of skiing, which along with cardiovascular fitness and muscle strength, demands a measure of speed and agility. “I’m a huge fan of cone drills,” she said. “I just picked up a set for the house.”   Sold in sporting goods stores, cones are smaller and lighter than traffic cones. Matthews, an exercise physiologist, thinks they are ideal for setting up a circuit to train for the movements of weaving down a mountain. “You can work on developing lower body strength, lateral movements, do cone jumps and practice proper landing,” she said. Squats and lunges build lower body strength but for those challenged by a full squat, Matthews suggests the wall sit, which is essentially placing the back against the wall with knees bent. Ideally, she said, you want to begin a pre-ski routine at least six weeks prior to hitting the slopes. “That’s a good time from physiological standpoint,” she said. Another crucial element to skiing is the ability to react quickly. “Downhill is not straight downhill,” said Matthews. “You have to dodge people. You’ve got to be able to make quick changes, you might have to counter a fall, so it’s important to make sure your hips, legs, shoulders, spine are all ready to go.” Wheeler said.

Output: Pre-ski preparations help before hitting the slopes.


Input: Consider Input: The story not only mentions the cost of a scan to individuals ($100 to $500), it also notes that about $50 million dollars was spent on this type of scanning nationwide in 2008. A longer story could have also reported on the costs of additional testing and treatments triggered by screening apparently healthy individuals. As mentioned above, the story notes that while some experts recommend CT screening for coronary artery calcium deposits in order to increase the number of people receiving treatment to reduce the likelihood of a heart, others are skeptical about the real value of this type of screening for apparently health people. The reporter points out that many heart attacks strike people who do not have very high cholesterol levels or other indicators of elevated risk, but also that “no study has linked the use of CT scans with better patient outcomes.”   The potential cancer risk caused by CT screening for signs of heart disease is the point of this story. Also, by highlighting uncertainty about the benefits of the screening and recapping debate over the Texas law mandating coverage of the scans, the story emphasizes the importance of considering potential harms when setting public policy on screening tests. A longer story could have considered other potential harms, including the side effects of treatments prescribed based on screening tests. The story does a good job of summarizing the results of this study of potential cancer risk from CT screening. In addition, it outlines the positions of experts and organizations on the broader body of evidence on the use of CT scans to identify people who may have plaque buildups in their heart arteries. It would have been better if the reporter stated that the estimate was based on several assumptions, that it wasn’t a definitive point estimate, but just the center of a range, and that it was higher than earlier estimates. Readers still got the point that there is a cancer risk which needs to be considered. The story notes that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., but it also points out doubts about whether screening with CT scans for calcium buildup in heart arteries can reduce the toll. The story includes experts and advocates that represent the key perspectives in debate about CT screening for calcium deposits in coronary arteries. However, it does not include information on possible conflicts of interest. Although this story points out that alternative screening techniques are available and it makes reference to cholesterol, it does not include any details about the alternatives. The story says that the CT scanners used for this test are “all over the city” and included an estimate that in 2008 about 200,000 people around the country were scanned for calcium buildups in their coronary arteries. not in question in this story The story includes quotes from independent experts and other information that was not in the news release about the journal article.

Output: Warning sounded on heart scan law


Input: Consider Input: “The cycle is accelerating,” said NASA climate scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, a co-author of the report. “The threat of climate change affecting people’s food on their dinner table is increasing.” But if people change the way they eat, grow food and manage forests, it could help save the planet from a far warmer future, scientists said. Earth’s land masses, which are only 30% of the globe, are warming twice as fast as the planet as a whole. While heat-trapping gases are causing problems in the atmosphere, the land has been less talked about as part of climate change. A special report, written by more than 100 scientists and unanimously approved by diplomats from nations around the world Thursday at a meeting in Geneva, proposed possible fixes and made more dire warnings. “The way we use land is both part of the problem and also part of the solution,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, a French climate scientist who co-chairs one of the panel’s working groups. “Sustainable land management can help secure a future that is comfortable.” Scientists at Thursday’s press conference emphasized both the seriousness of the problem and the need to make societal changes soon. “We don’t want a message of despair,” said science panel official Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London. “We want to get across the message that every action makes a difference.” Still the stark message hit home hard for some of the authors. “I’ve lost a lot of sleep about what the science is saying. As a person, it’s pretty scary,” Koko Warner, a manager in the U.N. Climate Change secretariat who helped write a report chapter on risk management and decision-making, told The Associated Press after the report was presented at the World Meteorological Organization headquarters in Geneva. “We need to act urgently.” The report said climate change already has worsened land degradation, caused deserts to grow, permafrost to thaw and made forests more vulnerable to drought, fire, pests and disease. That’s happened even as much of the globe has gotten greener because of extra carbon dioxide in the air. Climate change has also added to the forces that have reduced the number of species on Earth. “Climate change is really slamming the land,” said World Resources Institute researcher Kelly Levin, who wasn’t part of the study. And the future could be worse. “The stability of food supply is projected to decrease as the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events that disrupt food chains increases,” the report said. In the worst-case scenario, food security problems change from moderate to high risk with just a few more tenths of a degree of warming from now. They go from high to “very high” risk with just another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming from now. “The potential risk of multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” NASA’s Rosenzweig said. “Just to give examples, the crop yields were effected in Europe just in the last two weeks.” Scientists had long thought one of the few benefits of higher levels of carbon dioxide, the major heat-trapping gas, was that it made plants grow more and the world greener, Rosenzweig said. But numerous studies show that the high levels of carbon dioxide reduce protein and nutrients in many crops. For example, high levels of carbon in the air in experiments show wheat has 6% to 13% less protein, 4% to 7% less zinc and 5% to 8% less iron, she said. But better farming practices — such as no-till agricultural and better targeted fertilizer applications — have the potential to fight global warming too, reducing carbon pollution up to 18% of current emissions levels by 2050, the report said. If people change their diets, reducing red meat and increasing plant-based foods, such as fruits, vegetables and seeds, the world can save as much as another 15% of current emissions by mid-century. It would also make people more healthy, Rosenzweig said. The science panel said they aren’t telling people what to eat because that’s a personal choice. Still, Hans-Otto Pörtner, a panel leader from Germany who said he lost weight and felt better after reducing his meat consumption, told a reporter that if she ate less ribs and more vegetables “that’s a good decision and you will help the planet reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Reducing food waste can fight climate change even more. The report said that between 2010 and 2016, global food waste accounted for 8% to 10% of heat-trapping emissions. “Currently 25%-30% of total food produced is lost or wasted,” the report said. Fixing that would free up millions of square miles of land. With just another 0.9 degrees F of warming (0.5 degrees C), which could happen in the next 10 to 30 years, the risk of unstable food supplies, wildfire damage, thawing permafrost and water shortages in dry areas “are projected to be high,” the report said. At another 1.8 degrees F of warming (1 degree C) from now, which could happen in about 50 years, it said those risks “are projected to be very high.” Most scenarios predict the world’s tropical regions will have “unprecedented climatic conditions by the mid-to-late 21st century,” the report noted. Agriculture and forestry together account for about 23% of the heat-trapping gases that are warming the Earth, slightly less than from cars, trucks, boats and planes. Add in transporting food, energy costs, packaging and that grows to 37%, the report said. But the land is also a great carbon “sink,” which sucks heat-trapping gases out of the air. From about 2007 to 2016, agriculture and forestry every year put 5.7 billion tons (5.2 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide into the air, but pulled 12.3 billion tons (11.2 billion metric tons) of it out. “This additional gift from nature is limited. It’s not going to continue forever,” said study co-author Luis Verchot, a scientist at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia. “If we continue to degrade ecosystems, if we continue to convert natural ecosystems, we continue to deforest and we continue to destroy our soils, we’re going to lose this natural subsidy.” Overall land emissions are increasing, especially because of cutting down forests in the Amazon in places such as Brazil, Colombia and Peru, Verchot said. Recent forest management changes in Brazil “contradicts all the messages that are coming out of the report,” Pörtner said. Saying “our current way of living and our economic system risks our future and the future of our children,” Germany’s environment minister, Svenja Schulze, questioned whether it makes sense for a country like Germany to import large amounts of soy from Latin America, where forests are being destroyed to plant the crop, to feed unsustainable numbers of livestock in Germany. “We ought to recognize that we have profound limits on the amount of land available and we have to be careful about how we utilize it,” said Stanford University environmental sciences chief Chris Field, who wasn’t part of the report. ___ AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein reported from Washington. Frank Jordans contributed from Berlin. ___ For more Associated Press stories about climate change, go to https://www.apnews.com/Climate ___ Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter: @borenbears ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Output: UN climate report: Change land use to avoid a hungry future.