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'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Tokyo’s metropolitan government has strongly urged people to stay at home as the city of nearly 14 million has seen an uptick in the number of cases in recent days. The number of cases with untraceable transmission routes had increased in recent days, Governor Yuriko Koike said in a livecast YouTube video on Sunday, adding it was worrying that there were a number of people who were infected at hospitals. The majority of confirmed COVID-19 cases over the weekend in Tokyo were of people under the age of 50, a member of Japan’s health ministry taskforce for the virus said in the same livecast Sunday night, adding that many of them were in their 20s and 30s. Tokyo’s metropolitan government has repeatedly called on residents in the densely populated city to avoid all unnecessary outings. Koike said in an earlier TV appearance that “lives were at stake”. Global cases of the new coronavirus have shot past 1 million with more than 64,000 deaths. Japan, with some 3,000 cases and 73 deaths as of Friday, has so far been spared the kind of explosive surge seen in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. With the increase in cases in Tokyo, there have been growing calls from Tokyo’s governor and groups representing medical professionals for the central government to call for a “state of emergency”. Unlike in some countries, that would give the government limited enforcement power. Claim: Tokyo reports 143 new coronavirus cases, highest jump in one day: governor.

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "In a public interview hosted by the Austin-based Texas Tribune, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White compared Republican leadership on state budget woes to how things swung in ye olde U.S.S.R. You remember, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- home of the late dictator Joseph Stalin and run single-handedly by the Communist Party prior to the government's collapse in 1991. White said March 9 he’d take a more deliberate approach to spending than the state's top leaders, all Republican, who asked government agencies in January to suggest ways to cut their budgets by 5 percent. White said if he's in charge, ""it won’t be done by things that are just across the board, Soviet style, you know, budget management that only career politicians seem to embrace."" Pressed by interviewer Evan Smith, White said: ""Is it just a coincidence that 5 percent is the appropriate amount for each state agency?... No. It’s because that’s the way that career politicians know how to run government."" We started our review of White's statement wondering what ""Soviet-style"" budget management means. Several expert professors said that historically, the term didn't refer to across-the-board budget cuts. Professor Paul Gregory of the University of Houston Department of History said ""Soviet style"" makes him think of a monopoly party (in this case, the Communist Party) dictating everything to subordinates without any possibility of change. Gregory said Soviet-style budgeting also means hiding expenditures you don’t want people to see—such as massive investments in military infrastructure. Peter Caldwell, a Rice University professor of history, said budget-writing in the Soviet Union most often consisted of “huge and crude” decisions to invest in one part of the economy at the expense of another. And H. Stephen Gardner, chairman of the Baylor University Department of Economics, said he’d define Soviet-style management as overly centralized as opposed to giving autonomy to individual units of government. So are there ""Soviet style"" ways that state leaders have approached the budget? Some background: In January, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus--mindful of a projected state revenue shortfall that could reach $15 billion by next January--jointly asked agencies to submit plans identifying savings in 5 percent “priority increments” in their 2010-11 appropriations from state revenue. Such plans could lead to cuts, though no decisions have been made and some programs have already been excused. No doubt, the leaders' request is a centralized one. But is it Soviet-style in any other way? We turned to White for elaboration. White’s campaign pointed us to a statement issued by White, the former Houston mayor, in January: “Well-run organizations cut spending based on priorities and where they can best attain productivity improvements. So, for example, in the city of Houston we made smaller cuts in public safety because that was the highest priority. And we were able to cut more in garbage collection and disposal through productivity improvements.” White then told us that by ""Soviet style,"" he doesn't mean that Texas state government owns the means of production, as in the Soviet Union. “Obviously we have a market system,” White said. He described his alternative approach to the looming revenue gap, saying that as governor, he'd focus on funding priorities such as education while encouraging agencies to improve productivity via ""process re-engineering"" without hurting the delivery of services to taxpayers. He said the state also would seek savings by renegotiating vendor contracts. Also, he said, there’d be regular meetings with agency chiefs to talk about how they’re cutting spending and avoiding non-essential hirings. “I would have had reports back to me weekly and monthly concerning the efficiencies identified,” White said. We didn't get to why White considers the existing approach ""Soviet style"" before he had to go. We asked the professors if ""Soviet style"" accurately characterizes the GOP leaders' request for proposed budget cuts. Gregory said describing the request from Perry, et al. that way “doesn’t seem to have any relevance to what was actually practiced in the Soviet Union. ... It's inappropriate to use that term."" Gardner agreed, saying: ""It’s a bit hyperbolic to refer to this (budget cutting) as Soviet style. I should admit I have done exactly the same thing myself on matters of budgeting.” The point of saying as much, Gardner said, is to elicit an emotional reaction. He added that Republicans who cast President Barack Obama as socialist — Perry has told reporters he thinks Obama has socialist beliefs — are likewise guilty of hyperbole for dramatic effect. The professor, who said he considers Obama a centrist, speculated that Noam Chomsky, a left-leaning linguist who writes on public affairs, would call the president a ""crazed capitalist."" ""If White’s point is that budget management is being handled in an overly centralized way,"" Gardner said, ""I can see the element of truth there. The problem I would have is even if you say I am going to be more careful and more surgically look at the right places to cut, you’re still using a more centralized approach.” Caldwell agreed with the psychological impact, if not the accuracy, of ""Soviet style."" Generally, he said, “anyone who ever mentions the Soviet economy or Naziism when they’re talking about American domestic debate is usually off track. They’re referring to crude examples to raise the stakes of a debate. They’re not necessarily wanting a careful, rational debate. Who in America wants the Soviet economy or supports Naziism?” Our conclusion? The GOP leaders' request that agencies submit proposed budget cuts isn’t Soviet style — not even close. At best, White's statement is an example of how politicians try to light up a room. It's so off base, we're lighting up the meter: !" Claim: "Bill White Says Republican state leaders are using ""Soviet-style"" budget management."

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "In a swipe at the World Health Organization, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway made a misleading claim about COVID-19, implying that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus was so named because it’s the latest in a string of similar coronaviruses. ""Some of the scientists and doctors say there could be other strains later on, this could come back in the fall in a limited way,"" Conway said in an April 15 ""Fox & Friends"" interview. ""This is COVID-19, not COVID-1, folks. And so you would think that people charged with the World Health Organization facts and figures would be on top of that."" ""People should know the facts,"" she added. The comment came one day after President Donald Trump announced his intention to halt U.S. funding to the WHO and review its handling of the virus. But the name of the disease doesn’t mean the WHO had 18 chances to learn about coronaviruses before the latest strain hit. COVID-19 is short for ""coronavirus disease 2019,"" a name that reflects the year in which the disease was first identified. The WHO announced the name on Feb. 11. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ""CO"" stands for ""corona,"" ""VI"" stands for ""virus,"" and ""D"" stands for ""disease."" Before the WHO formalized a name for the disease, it was referred to as the ""2019 novel coronavirus"" or ""2019-nCoV."" The virus itself, by contrast, is known as ""severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2"" and abbreviated as ""SARS-CoV-2,"" according to the WHO. The CDC lists seven coronaviruses that are known to infect humans, some of which are relatively common. Conway was clearer about the origins of ""COVID-19"" during a separate interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo roughly 30 minutes after her comment on ""Fox & Friends."" ""It’s called COVID-19 because that’s the year, that’s the year,"" Conway said while ripping the WHO’s response to the coronavirus outbreak. ""It’s not COVID-20. It’s COVID-19."" Facing blowback for her ""Fox & Friends"" comment, Conway tweeted the clip from her interview with Bartiromo. She said she knows ""19 refers to (the) year,"" but that she was making the point that the WHO ""should see pandemics coming"" because of the funding it gets from the U.S.  Dear @RepBobbyRush: I know 19 refers to year. I’m in Task Force daily (Congress is out until May 4). Point: WHO has received billion$ from USA for decades; it should see pandemics coming & be honestWhich felt better:insulting me or endorsing Bloomberg for President?God bless https://t.co/3LpvkoQERb In a statement to PolitiFact, a White House official said Conway is ""well aware that ‘19’ refers to the year"" and that she attends meetings held by the White House’s coronavirus task force. Conway was addressing ""the sheer number of years the U.S. has given billions and billions of dollars to WHO and were failed by them,"" the White House said, adding that in each of her April 15 interviews, she said the WHO’s job is to anticipate infectious disease pandemics. ""Kellyanne never mentioned ‘18 other coronaviruses,’"" the White House said. Conway said, ""This is COVID-19, not COVID-1,"" arguing that the WHO should have been better prepared to deal with the virus. ""People should know the facts,"" she added. We agree. The name of the disease caused by the coronavirus, COVID-19, doesn’t mean it’s the 19th in a series of similar coronaviruses. The 19 refers to the year it was discovered, 2019. Conway made the claim with a straight-face, but she later said she knew what the name meant." Claim: This is COVID-19, not COVID-1, folks. And so you would think the people charged with the World Health Organization facts and figures would be on top of that.

Ex Output:

0