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 Input:
"The Republican Party of Texas marveled — not in a good way — at an admission of sorts by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the long-stalled health care overhaul before Congress. According to an e-mail the GOP sent Friday, Pelosi said “the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.” Talk about a banana-peel moment. Did Pelosi improbably denigrate her party’s promised legislation and say people can find out what’s in it after it passes? GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi’s March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. We learned, for starters, that while the Texas GOP thinks the legislation is terrible, Pelosi clearly doesn't. Instead, Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, “robust support for public health infrastructure,” more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits. She summarizes: “It’s going to be very, very exciting.” Yet there’s heft to the GOP's claim that Pelosi said the legislation has to pass so people can find out what’s in it. Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Pelosi's words stirred critics from the right including Marguerite Higgins, a senior editorial services associate at The Heritage Foundation. In a blog, Higgins named the moment the video of the week and called Pelosi’s statement a “stunning demonstration of political condescension.” Separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly offered this interpretation of Pelosi's comment: ""She meant there was so much talk about process (in Congress) that people have lost sight of what’s actually in the bill. Once it’s passed, we can remind them of all the good things that are in it."" Capital fusses aside, we wondered if Pelosi spoke accurately; will the plan need to pass before people know what's in it? We called the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has posted side-by-side comparisons online of health care plans approved by the House and Senate. Its spokesman, Craig Palosky, reminded us that Congress posts the entire legislation online. Of course, that's not to say the final deal is settled — or, it stands to reason, open to public view. Palosky declined to comment precisely on Pelosi's forecast, saying her comment seemed more about politics than policy. ""It’s not our role to police such comments,"" he said. ""If you want to know what members of Congress are doing, you have to speak to members of Congress.” His nudge led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal. Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors. Pelosi's ""right,"" Burgess said, though ""I don’t think that’s a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn’t recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."" So how does the GOP's statement shake out? The party's e-mail errs when it makes it sound as if Pelosi thinks the health-care measure is terrible. It's very much the opposite. But it accurately quotes Pelosi as saying people will find out what's in the plan after it passes."

Ex Output:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.


Ex Input:
Not applicable. The story presented the outcome of 472 obese individuals and examined in more detail those who were able, on average, to loss 14 pounds over a period of 26 weeks. The story did not provide any insight as to whether this amount of weight loss resulted in any health improvement in the obese individuals who were studied. So the true benefit – the true significance of the potential benefit – was not explained. Further – while the study found that those who got an adequate amount of sleep were among the cohort of individuals who were found to lose the most weight, the story did not explicitly point out that the study does not inform us about whether enforced hours of sleep would impact weight loss and weight loss management. So, again, the headline, the story’s first sentence, and the call to action by the researcher were not balanced. The story was reporting on the impact of getting adequate amounts of sleep on weight loss. While there was no overt discussion of the harm of obtaining adequate amounts of sleep, there doesn’t appear to be any harm involved in adequate sleep. Similar to the LA Times story we reviewed on the same study, this story did not challenge researchers’ comments that went too far in promoting a call to action based on one observational study – a study that can’t prove cause and effect. Its opening sentence is an example of that flaw:  “If you’re looking to lose those extra pounds, you should probably add reducing stress and getting the right amount of sleep to the list…” Later, it didn’t challenge a researcher when he said, “If you want to lose weight, things that will help you include reducing stress and getting the right amount of sleep.”  That’s pushing the limits of what one can conclude based on one observational study and the story should have explained that limitation. Toward the end, in describing another study, it started in a good direction by explaining that conclusions “should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.”  Actually, they should be considered preliminary because they were based on analysis of just 26 people. They should be considered to have evaded full scrutiny by expert colleagues until published in a peer-reviewed journal. Just because work has not been peer-reviewed does not make it preliminary. The intent, we think, was correct. But the explanation – the limitation – was not defined appropriately. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. This story included expert quotes and also some insight from the results of a recently presented study. One of the strengths of this story in comparison with its shorter LA Times competition is the context it provided, much of it from an independent expert who said: “People who are healthy and vital tend to be healthy and vital not because of any one factor, but because of many. And the factors that promote health — eating well, being active, not smoking, sleeping enough, controlling stress, to name a few –promote all aspects of health. …The important message is that weight loss should not be looked at with tunnel vision. … This study encourages weight loss in a more holistic context.” Not applicable. The story was framed as taking a broader perspective when contemplating weight loss and including other lifestyle factors which can affect food intake and exercise. Better than its LA Times competition, at least this story nodded in the direction of one other recent study on sleep and weight, thereby conveying that the newer study is not the only research on this topic. It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Less Stress, Better Sleep May Help You Lose Weight


Ex Input:
"The sight of the moon’s shadow passing directly in front of the sun, blotting out all but the halo-like solar corona, may draw the largest live audience for a celestial event in human history. When those watching via broadcast and online media are factored into the mix, the spectacle will likely smash records. “It will certainly be the most observed total eclipse in history,” astronomer Rick Fienberg of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) said last week. The eclipse begins its cross-country trajectory over the Pacific Coast of Oregon in late morning. It will reach South Carolina’s Atlantic shore some 90 minutes later. The total eclipse of the sun is considered one of the most spell-binding phenomena in nature but it rarely occurs over a wide swath of land, let alone one of the world’s most heavily populated countries at the height of summer. In terms of audience potential, it is hard to top the United States, with its mobile and affluent population, even though the direct path is mostly over rural areas, towns and small cities. The largest is Nashville, Tennessee, a city of 660,000 residents. Even so the advent of social media and inexpensive high-tech optics have boosted public awareness, assuring what many U.S. experts predict will be unprecedented viewership for the so-called “Great American Eclipse.”   Some might take issue with that prediction, citing a solar eclipse visible over parts of India, Nepal, Bangladesh and central China in July 2009. National Geographic estimated 30 million people in Shanghai and Hangzhou alone were in its path that day. On Monday, the deepest part of the shadow, or umbra, cast by the moon will fall over a 70-mile-wide (113-km-wide), 2,500-mile-long (4,000-km-long) ""path of totality"" traversing 14 states. The 12 million people who live there can view the eclipse at its fullest merely by walking outside and looking up, weather permitting. (tmsnrt.rs/2fNQHFb)  LIVESTREAMING AND PRICE-GOUGING  Some 200 million Americans reside within a day’s drive of the totality zone, and as many as 7 million, experts say, are expected to converge on towns and campgrounds along the narrow corridor for the event. Many are attending multiday festivals featuring music, yoga and astronomy lectures. Millions more could potentially watch in real time as the eclipse is captured by video cameras mounted on 50 high-altitude balloons and streamed online in a joint project between NASA and Montana State University. A partial eclipse will appear throughout North America. Adding further to the excitement is the wide availability of affordable solar-safe sunglasses produced by the millions and selling so fast that suppliers were running out of stock. The owner of one leading manufacturer reported price gouging by second-hand dealers who were buying up large supplies and reselling them over the internet at a huge mark-up. Not all the hoopla will unfold on dry land. Welsh pop singer Bonnie Tyler is slated to perform her 1983s hit single “Total Eclipse of the Heart” aboard a cruise liner as the vessel sails into the path of totality from Florida on Monday. Back on the ground, forest rangers, police and city managers in the total eclipse zone are bracing for a crush of travelers they fear will cause epic traffic jams and heighten wildfire hazards. “Imagine 20 Woodstock festivals occurring simultaneously across the nation,” Michael Zeiler, an AAS advisory panel member wrote on his website, GreatAmericanEclipse.com, referring to the famously chaotic 1969 outdoor rock extravaganza in upstate New York. Hundreds of residents in a prime-viewing area in Oregon had to evacuate on Saturday under threat from a wildfire raging in the Deschutes National Forest, according to InciWeb fire-tracking website. The so-called Milli Fire, which has scorched more than 7,8OO acres (3,162 hectare), is one of seven burning in Oregon, Montana and Idaho, three of the states crossed by the totality path. Zeiler, an avowed “eclipse chaser” who made the 650-mile (1,046-km) drive from his New Mexico home to Wyoming for a choice view, said South Carolina is likely to see the greatest influx as the destination state closest to the entire U.S. Eastern seaboard. Monday’s event will be the first total solar eclipse spanning the entire continental United States since 1918 and the first visible anywhere in the Lower 48 states in 38 years. The next one over North America is due in just seven years, in April 2024."

Ex Output:

Millions of Americans to gaze upon Monday's once-in-a-lifetime eclipse.