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.

Example Input: "The New England Patriots might wish this entire business of under-inflated footballs would vanish in a puff of smoke, but it’s a boon for physics teachers who have found themselves suddenly relevant in the world of sports. Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a self-declared non-scientist, held a pre-Super Bowl news conference where he attempted to explain why a football inflated indoors would lose pressure after being used outside. ""When the footballs are delivered to the officials' locker room, the officials were asked to inflate them to 12.5 pounds per square inch. What exactly they did, I don’t know,"" Belichick said. ""When the footballs go out on to the field into game conditions ...  That’s where the measurements would be different than what they are, possibly different, than what they are in a controlled environment."" Belichick said when Patriot staffers tested this, they found that the balls ""were down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch."" There are too many unknowns to resolve Deflategate, as this flap is called. But we couldn't help but give Belichick's main assertion the PunditFact treatment. The question in this case is what physics tells us about Belichick’s point. Could conditions outside (basically temperature and humidity) bring down the pressure of a football by about 1.5 pounds per square inch? A quick recap The Patriots advanced to the Super Bowl on Jan. 18, 2015, by defeating the Indianapolis Colts 45-7. But by the next day, the most interesting number wasn’t the point spread, but the inflation pressure of the Patriots’ footballs. Under NFL rules, each team provides 12 balls, and about two hours before the game, an official verifies that they are inflated to the regulation pressure range of 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch. At half-time, the NFL re-checked the Patriots’ footballs -- reportedly at the request of the Colts but there’s a bit of conflicting information on this -- and found 11 of the 12 were under inflated. By how much? That’s unclear. Some reports say by 2 pounds per square inch. Others say while one ball might have measured that low, the rest were only about 1 pound under. One other essential variable: The temperature on game day was around 50 degrees. No one knows the exact inside temperature. Most people assume it was about 70 degrees. Doing the math After Belichick spoke, ABC News turned to Bill Nye, the popular explainer of all things scientific, to assess the coach’s claim. ABC played up Nye's verdict that Belichick's words ""didn’t make any sense,"" but from the video, it sounds as though Nye was talking about Belichick's claim that rubbing the footballs would change the pressure, not the impact of temperature. CBS Sports relayed a tweet from another science luminary, physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who also expressed skepticism. ""For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15 percent lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air,"" Tyson wrote. CBS reported that ""Every 10 degree drop in temperature (F) results in about .2 PSI loss in a football."" According to CBS, that meant the weather would account for just a 0.4 pound of pressure loss, and tied that conclusion, loosely, to an Ohio State University physicist. We’ll get back to that CBS story (and its flaws) in a bit. On the other side of the ledger, USA Today interviewed Bowdoin College physics professor Dale Syphers who declared that a drop from room temperature in the 70s down to 40 degrees would reduce the pressure in a football by 1.3 pounds per square inch. The Daily Beast turned to the chair of the Physics Department at Boston College who said that with a 30 degree drop in temperature -- 75 down to 45 degrees -- you would expect the ball pressure to fall by by 1.54 pounds per square inch. Finally, the world of physics is divided between the theoretical physicists and the experimentalists. The physicists cited in the news worked with formulas. HeadSmart Labs, a private firm in Pittsburgh, tested actual footballs. It found that footballs inflated at 75 degrees, then cooled to 50 degrees lost 1.1 pounds of pressure. The lab took one more step. Since it was raining on game day, the staff dampened the balls. This led to a drop of an additional 0.7 pounds of pressure for a total of at least 1.8 pounds per square inch. The physics teachers come off the bench Enter Robert Hilborn of the American Association of Physics Teachers. The Harvard-trained physicist showed in detail how a law of physics, the ideal gas law, applied to the Patriots’ footballs. When a gas cools, it contracts. The ideal gas law helps us put numbers to that relationship between pressure and temperature. Math alert: We’re going to show you pretty much everything, so you can do it yourself at home. ""As almost every chemistry and physics student knows, the ideal gas law tells us that Pf = Pi (Tf/Ti),"" Hilborn wrote. The final pressure Pf equals the initial pressure Pi times the final temperature divided by the initial temperature Tf/Ti. Plugging in the numbers is simple, so long as you keep two things in mind. First, the pressure isn’t the pressure you see on your pressure gauge. It’s that amount plus the pressure of the atmosphere that’s all around you. It might feel counterintuitive, but when a football comes off the assembly line, before it's ever pumped up, it actually has an internal pressure that you wouldn't notice because it's the same as the pressure we always ignore. That's the pressure that comes from all those miles of air in our atmosphere pushing down on us. That pressure averages around 14.7 pounds per square inch. When you pump air into the football, you are adding pressure on top of the 14.7 that are already there. In Hilborn's math, you'll see he's added in the atmospheric pressure. The other key step is to measure the temperature in Celsius and count from absolute zero. That’s the Kelvin scale. Hilborn used a starting temperature of 70 degrees and a final temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit and a starting pressure of 12.5 pounds per square inch. ""Those numbers give us 27.2 psi for Pi, 294 K for Ti, and 283 K for Tf resulting in Pf = 26.2 psi for the total pressure and a corresponding gauge pressure of 11.5 psi, about 1 psi below the NFL lower limit."" In short, taking the balls outside would bring the pressure down 1 pound per square inch. Hilborn then accounted for the rain that day. Cooling the moist air inside the footballs would shed another 0.2 pounds per square inch. ""Combining the air temperature change effect with that of water vapor gives us a total of 1.2 psi, not too far from the figure of 1.4 psi given in one of the early NFL statements,"" Hilborn wrote. Hilborn’s results are pure math, and they are largely in line with the test results from the lab in Pittsburgh. The results in other news reports We were troubled by the CBS item that came up with a much lower number of 0.4 pounds per square inch due to a lower outdoor temperature. But when we called Prof. Michael Lisa, the Ohio State University physicist quoted in the CBS article, Lisa said, ""CBS got it wrong."" Lisa sent us this chart that you can download showing that for each 10 degrees drop in temperature, pressure drops 0.5 pounds. (The chart’s different lines show that the higher the starting pressure, the greater the impact of falling temperature.) We found that news reports that undercut the Patriots’ explanation used a high number for the loss of pressure. CBS said the footballs lost 2 pounds of pressure. Ditto for a Toronto Sun article. If it turns out that there really was a loss that large, then those arguments hold up. For the moment, we are simply assessing whether the physics back up what Belichick said and he used the 1.5 pound figure. Lisa also affirmed Hilborn’s analysis. ""That AAPT guy did a nice job,"" Lisa said. Nevertheless, Hilborn himself said no one should rush to judgment. ""A conservative conclusion is that temperature changes alone can account for much of the under-inflation,"" Hilborn wrote. ""But until more accurate information is available about the preparation of and measurement of the footballs’ air pressure, we should not assert that conclusion with a great deal of certainty."" The NFL is investigating and at some point, all the numbers might be known. Or not. Hilborn told PunditFact that the accuracy of the pressure gauges is unclear. One number that will be of interest is the starting pressure for the Colts’ footballs. It's possible they may have deflated as well, but stayed within the legal limits. Our ruling Belichick said that moving the footballs from indoors to outdoors could explain the loss of about 1.5 pounds per square inch of pressure. Experimental and mathematical results are in that ballpark. Lab tests said air temperature alone could bring down the pressure by 1.1 pounds. The ideal gas law predicted a 1 pound loss. The rain that day would explain at least another 0.2 pound shift and possibly as much as 0.7. We lack firm numbers on the actual pressure drop in the Patriots footballs, as well as precise information on the starting and ending temperatures. Within the limits of what the physics alone can tell us at this point, the math gets us pretty close to what Belichick said. With allowances for the uncertain data."
Example Output: "Atmospheric conditions could push a football’s pressure ""down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch."

Example Input: The city school systems in Albertville, Boaz and Guntersville have joined the Cullman County and Marshall County system in shutting down until next week. State statistics show Marshall County is the largest system affected by the illness with 5,468 students in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Marshall County plans to resume classes on Tuesday; the others return on Monday. Gov. Kay Ivey declared a flu emergency earlier this month because of an outbreak of the illness. State Health Department officials have said they are investigating more than 50 deaths potentially linked to a flu outbreak statewide, and the agency has been special clinics to vaccinate people against the disease.
Example Output: 5 Alabama school systems closed because of flu.

Example Input: "With the health care bill teetering in the balance, antiabortion Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's announcement hours before the final vote that an agreement had been reached on the abortion issue marked a momentous shift. For weeks, Stupak insisted he and a group of other abortion foes in the House could not support the Senate bill because it would result in federal funding of abortions, contrary to longstanding federal policy. But on the afternoon of March 21, 2010, Stupak said in a news conference that the promise of an executive order on abortion from President Barack Obama convinced him ""there will be no public funding of abortion in this legislation."" Stupak's comments several hours later on the House floor provided some of the most emotionally charged moments of the late-night health care debate. ""It is the Democrats who, through the president's executive order, ensure that the sanctity of life is protected,"" Stupak said. His comments were interrupted by catcalls from the bill's Republican opponents, one of whom was heard to yell ""baby killer!"" Texas Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer later said he was the one who shouted. But he said he yelled ""It's a baby killer,"" referring not to Stupak (to whom he apologized), but to the agreement Stupak helped forge with the president. The abortion issue in the health care reform debate has been thorny from the start. From early on, legislators on both sides of the abortion issue professed a desire to maintain the status quo on abortion in the health care bill. But that quickly proved difficult, if not impossible. Here's why: Since 1976, the federal government has been guided by the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in peril. Due to that amendment -- which must be renewed every year -- abortion services are not provided in health care plans offered to federal employees and for active and retired military. But the health care reform bill proposes a health care exchange in which private insurance companies could compete for the business of people who do not get their insurance through an employer. The question then: Should private companies be allowed to offer abortion coverage (as most already do)? And what if the people buying policies are getting government subsidies to buy insurance? In the House, Stupak helped add an amendment that bars anyone who accepts federal subsidies for health coverage from buying a plan with abortion coverage on the exchange. The amendment does let them choose a plan with abortion coverage if they pay for it without using federal subsidies. And those who accept subsidies can still buy an abortion ""rider"" -- that is, a separate policy covering abortion -- as long as they pay for it entirely with their own money. The Senate took a different tack. The Senate language on abortion, written by an abortion opponent, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., would allow companies in the exchange to offer abortion services, even to people who get federal subsidies. But Nelson inserted measures to ensure abortion services would be paid through patient premiums, not federal subsidies. In order to accomplish that, the Senate bill requires that anyone who selects a plan that covers abortion must pay $1 a month toward a segregated fund that would pay for abortion services. One plan in every state exchange must offer coverage that does not include abortions, so there would be an option for those who morally object to $1 of their premiums going toward abortion services. Legislators supporting the bill -- along with President Obama -- insist that segregation of funds stays  to the Hyde Amendment restriction on federal funds for abortions. The Senate bill's proposal on abortion is opposed by activists on both sides of the abortion issue. Abortion rights groups like NARAL Pro Choice America, the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood all put out statements denouncing the requirement that policy owners or their employers write separate checks -- one for abortion services and one for everything else. NARAL called the provision ""unacceptable bureaucratic stigmatization (that) could cause insurance carriers to drop abortion coverage, even though more than 85 percent of private plans currently cover this care for women."" Abortion foes like the National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also vehemently opposed the Senate bill's abortion language, arguing that if you send federal subsidies to a person who then chooses a plan that cover abortions, that's federal funding of abortion. They called the plan to segregate money so that abortions are paid only through premiums -- not government subsidies -- nothing more than a bookkeeping scheme. Until March 21, 2010, that was Stupak's consistent position. In a Fox News interview on March 17, 2010, Stupak said of the Senate bill, ""It is very clear that abortion is, for the first time ever, a funded benefit by the federal government."" So, what changed on Sunday that prompted Stupak to say ""there will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation""? In the hours leading up to the vote, he and several other antiabortion Democrats in the House agreed to back the health bill after Obama promised to sign an executive order reinforcing the commitment that no federal funds would be used for abortions. The Senate bill already spelled out strict payment and accounting requirements to accomplish that, but Obama's executive order went one step further, putting the president's weight behind specific measures to ensure that funds are properly segregated. By our reading, the order mostly restates and reinforces the intent of the Senate bill. But it doesn't fundamentally change the fact that people getting government subsidies for health care will be able to buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortions. That's why some abortion foes -- not all -- believe Stupak essentially traded his vote for a handful of beans. ""It was issued for political effect,"" said Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee. ""We don't see any value in the order."" We don't think Rep. Stupak can credibly claim one day that the bill is federal funding of abortions, and then the next day, after getting the agreement on the executive order, that it does not. Stupak's issue all along was that if federal subsidies went to someone who could then choose a plan that covers abortions, that was federal funding for abortion. And that hasn't changed. The president's order spells out safeguards to ensure the funds are segregated. But if you thought that was a bookkeeping trick before, there's nothing in the executive order that would change your mind. At the climax of the health care debate from the floor, House Republican Leader John Boehner said that even with the executive order from the president, the Senate bill would provide ""taxpayer funding of abortions for the first time in 30 years."" We don't agree. It's understandable that abortion foes opposed a proposal that gives more people the opportunity to obtain insurance that cover abortions. But it's another thing to say those abortion services would be paid with federal dollars. The Senate bill states very clearly that public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services offered in the exchange is prohibited. But more than that, the bill sets up a mechanism to ensure that abortion services offered in the exchange are paid entirely from patient premiums, premiums paid by people who have chosen a private plan that covers abortion. The executive order puts the weight of the president's word behind providing a way to ensure two checks go to insurers every month, so that abortion dollars and federal dollars are not commingled. We think that's enough to back up Stupak's claim, ""There will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation."" But that's a conclusion we reached before the president promised an executive order, back when Stupak disagreed with us and insisted the bill would have had federal dollars subsidizing abortions. We don't understand how the executive order changes Stupak's logic on this issue, but no matter how he arrived as his conclusion, we think he's right now. And we rule his claim ."
Example Output:
There will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation.