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]: While there was no mention of coffee cost, this element is not particulary germane to this story. The article reported that drinking four eight-ounce cups of coffee was linked to a 30% reduction in the risk of developing diabetes. Rather than relative reduction, the article should have included the absolute reduction. The rate at which women who drank coffee developed type II diabetes was 6.05% while the rate in women who drank 4-5 cups of coffee per day was 4.30%. The relative difference always sounds more convincing; the absolute difference is what is probably most meaningful to viewers. So, in this case, a 30% relative difference equated to an absolute difference of less than 2%. There was no mention of potential harms that might be derived from increased coffee consumption. The article could have included concern about disrupted sleep, heart palpitations, increased urinary frequency, and jitteriness. Because of the design of the study covered in this story (a prospective epidemiologic study), it is not possible to conclude that increasing decaffeinated coffee consumption will decrease the risk of type II diabetes. This important point was covered by one of the physician quotes in the story. The speculation about what was in decaf coffee that resulted in the decreased risk of type II diabetes was not well grounded. Other than painting perhaps a little too rosy picture of all the potential benefits that might be gained from coffee consumption, this article did not practice disease mongering. It did not present any data on the prevalence of type II diabetes. The story could have mentioned that the Type II diabetes has become rather common place and is a public health issue. It appears that this story is based on a research study in the Archives of Internal Medicine and from comments by one physician and one researcher. It certainly would have been better to actually mention where the study was published rather than referring to it as “the study out today”. It would also have been better to give us some perspective about the value of the quotes provided by giving some background on the two people interviewed. Nonethless, we credit the story for having different perspectives. There was no mention of other lifestyle strategies that an individual might pursue in order to lower the risk of type II diabetes. This is a particularly important public health message. Moderate daily physical activity, such as walking, has also been shown to lower the risk of type II diabetes. The story isn’t about a treatment per se, but about the effects of drinking coffee, which is readily available to all. The story is quite clear about the widespread availability and use of coffee. There is a growing body of literature suggesting that coffee drinking can lower one’s risk of type II diabetes. This story covered the latest such evidence, and made it clear that this is part of a growing body of “more intriguing evidence.” There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
[EX A]: Coffee found to reduce risk of diabetes

[EX Q]: They found several creams caused skin cancer in the specially bred mice, which had been pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation. The cancers are not melanoma, the deadliest kind of skin cancer, they stressed in their report in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, but another type called squamous cell carcinoma. Such tumours are slow growing, highly treatable and only fatal if patients fail to have them removed. Allan Conney and colleagues at Rutgers University in New Jersey said they discovered the risk while testing a theory that caffeine could prevent skin cancer. “We sort of got into this by accident,” Conney said in a telephone interview. “We wanted a safe cream that we could put the caffeine into.”   They were testing specially bred albino mice, which are prone to develop skin cancer. The mice are pre-treated with ultraviolet radiation to simulate the effects of a human who has had heavy sun exposure in the past but then stopped — something that may be happening in the population as people realize the risks of getting a tan. Conney’s team decided to test the creams first and found that all four they tested caused tumours to grow on the mice. He said he does not know why, but suspects two ingredients — mineral oil and sodium laurel sulphate. “We’d like to understand the mechanism. What is most important is to see whether these moisturizing creams are tumorigenic in people,” Conney said. He said his lab is not equipped to do this but someone should. But he added, “I don’t think that people should be scared because this is a mouse study and we don’t know whether or not it applies to humans.”   Other experts were sceptical about the study. “This is a pretty artificial situation with the mouse skin primed by a lot of UV light to develop cancer,” Karol Sikora, Medical Director of Cancer Partners U.K. in Britain, said in a statement. Dr. Jonathan Rees, an expert in dermatology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, said squamous cell carcinoma was not a big health worry. “Non-melanoma skin cancer in man is very, very common and is almost 100 percent curable with an operation usually simpler than a tooth filling,” Rees said in a statement. Conney said the mouse was a commonly used model in skin cancer but said he agreed that it does not perfectly replicate human skin and human behaviour. He said his team approached Johnson & Johnson to create a cream without the suspect products and they developed one using other readily available ingredients. “They are things that are commonly used in many moisturizing creams,” he said. This cream did not cause the tumours in the mice, they said. He said Rutgers and Johnson & Johnson had patented the new cream jointly but did not know whether it would be commercially developed. A spokesman at the company was not immediately available for comment.
[EX A]: Skin creams seen to cause tumours on mice.

[EX Q]: "In the wake of a Oct. 1 shooting spree in Oregon that killed 10, many -- including President Barack Obama -- are calling for more gun control laws. ""There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America,"" Obama said in remarks the day of the shooting. ""So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence."" There is plenty of debate over the effectiveness of gun control laws, so we decided to dig into Obama’s sweeping claim: that ""states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" We ran this claim past several experts and found that the statistic generally holds up, but the implications are less clear. Cause and effect The meat of the claim comes from a 2015 National Journal investigation, which concluded that ""the states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths."" The report considered seven types of gun control: handgun permits, background checks, handgun registries, ""stand your ground"" laws, concealed carry permits, open carry permits and gun purchase waiting period. It found that states that had generally more restrictive laws within these categories generally had fewer annual gun deaths. Here’s a chart by National Journal showing the states with the fewest and most gun deaths per 100,000 people, compared to each state’s’ gun laws (more blue = more restrictive laws). You should look at the chart that shows all 50 states. There are some limitations to this kind of research, notably that they do not determine cause-and-effect: whether a state has fewer gun deaths because of the law, said Adam Winkler, a University of California Los Angeles law professor and second amendment expert. Other demographic characteristics -- such as education level, marital stability, rural or urban -- might explain the fewer gun deaths in a particular state. Setting that caveat aside, Winkler said Obama’s statement is true. There are also a couple of outliers to National Journal’s report. For example, New Hampshire has some of the least restrictive gun laws but also the seventh-lowest gun death rate. An academic study published by the American Medical Association in 2013 found similar results: ""A higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state."" In a commentary on the 2013 study, Garen Wintemute, director of UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, pointed out that the correlation between restrictive laws and fewer deaths ""essentially disappeared"" when firearm ownership rates were taken into account. ""Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association,"" Wintemute wrote. ""But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low — there will be less opposition to them — and firearm ownership confounds the association."" While wary of making such a general claim, Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said Obama’s claim is generally accurate. In many states, individual gun laws have shown to be associated with fewer gun-related deaths. He linked us to some of his own research showing, for example, a reduction in murders committed with firearms followed a handgun purchase permit law in Connecticut. In contrast, the repeal of a permit law in Missouri preceded a rise in firearm-caused murders. We looked for evidence to contradict Obama’s statement, and found several complaints from those who favor gun rights. James Agresti, a gun control expert for the conservative-leaning think tank Just Facts, wrote in an email to reporters that statements like Obama’s are ""meaningless"" and ""subjective and ill-defined,"" linking to a Just Facts article that said classification systems that evaluate gun laws state-by-state can be ""haphazard."" Agresti added that the claim ignores the number of lives saved by defensive gun use, and the fact that some states with highest gun-ownership rates also have low homicide rates. Overall, though, we found nothing that offered an outright contradiction to the National Journal analysis. States with laws that restrict guns do tend to have lower death rates, as Obama said. Suicide vs. homicide A notable critique of Obama’s claim is that these gun deaths include suicides -- which account for more than half of all gun deaths -- and Obama was delivering remarks in the context of how to prevent future mass shootings. While research does show that gun laws correlate with fewer firearm-caused suicides, there’s not universal agreement on the effect of gun laws on murders. In his commentary on the 2013 study, Wintemute noted that the vast majority of the observed decrease in gun deaths were suicides. Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker did a calculation of their own and found that when suicides are taken out of the picture, there’s not as clear a correlation between more gun laws and fewer non-suicide gun deaths. (They rated Obama’s statement as two out of four Pinocchios.) Obama’s use of this factoid is deceptive because he was selling gun control as a way to stymie murders, not suicide by gun, said David Kopel, a gun rights advocate and research director of the conservative Independence Institute in Denver. He likened it to a car salesman telling a family a car is ""safe, according to government studies."" The family takes this to mean the car will protect them in an accident, but the salesman was actually referring to the fact that studies have found the car to be safe for the environment. Experts do, though, see reason to believe that stronger gun laws will reduce homicides, as well, even if the research isn’t conclusive yet. One survey of about 150 researchers actively publishing work on guns found that 71 percent believe that strong gun laws reduce the number of homicides, compared with12 percent who disagree. While there are always exceptions, ""the research on the whole shows that if you make it more difficult for individuals -- especially individuals with a criminal background -- to obtain firearms you will prevent some gun-related criminal offenses,"" said Jay Corzine, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida who studies homicide and violent crime. Our ruling Obama said, ""States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" Research shows that the more gun laws a state has, the fewer gun deaths there are. Obama gets some wiggle room because he said ""tend to"" as opposed to making a definitive statement. The problem is, however, that this is an overly general statement. The research doesn’t prove a universal cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and fewer gun deaths; it might just be a correlation. Some laws are more effective than others, and other cultural, demographic or socioeconomic factors might be the driving force behind the number of gun deaths in different states. Correction: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of James Agresti, to clarify his views and to provide links to his original commentaries."
[EX A]:
States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.