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:
Preliminary results found the bacteria in the water supply at a prison medical facility in Stockton and at two neighboring youth correctional facilities, Corrections Department spokeswoman Vicky Waters said. Officials had thought it was isolated to one housing unit where the two inmates lived. They restricted water use throughout the medical facility and neighboring juvenile facility, bringing in bottled water. But they put special filters only on showers in the housing unit where the inmates had been housed in the California Health Care Facility, which treats about 2,670 inmates needing medical or mental health care. The neighboring O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility houses about 150 youths and N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility about 260 youths. No subsequent illnesses were reported and the source hasn’t been found. But officials now are adding the shower filters in other areas and warning against using unfiltered water throughout the three facilities. “We are responding to preliminary findings and recommendations,” Waters said in an email. “We are still awaiting the final findings and working on a remediation plan.” That includes deciding how they will clean out the bacteria from the facilities’ water system and how much it might cost, she said. The bacteria weren’t detected in the Stockton city water supply, though the city supplies water to the state facilities. An inmate who died last month had Legionnaires’ disease, which is considered a severe form of pneumonia. A second inmate tested positive for the bacteria but is in good condition. Legionella bacteria grow in water and spread through water vapor. They can cause a mild infection known as Pontiac fever or the more serious infection known as Legionnaires’ disease, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The disease occurs when contaminated water is inhaled into the lungs. It is considered particularly dangerous for older people and those with underlying health issues. Officials tested 28 inmates who suffered from pneumonia in February or March, but only the two inmates tested positive, officials said. Tests are pending on a more recent inmate with pneumonia. No inmates died but nearly 80 were sickened during a 2015 outbreak at San Quentin State Prison, 80 miles to the west. That temporarily forced the state’s oldest prison to cancel visits, hot meals and showers and ship in water and portable toilets.

Ex Output:
Legionnaires’ disease found in adjacent California prisons.


Ex Input:
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 Output:
Coffee found to reduce risk of diabetes


Ex Input:
On 3 May 2018, the “Occupy Democrats” Facebook page posted a meme which claimed that the president had violated the constitutional separation of church and state by setting up a “religious office”:  President Trump did sign an executive order in May 2018 to establish a new faith-based initiative within the White House, but nobody from his administration called it a “religious office” — that description appears to have come from Occupy Democrats. Furthermore, Trump’s initiative represents significant continuity of, rather than a departure from, the previous two administrations. Although every detail and working of the new initiative has not yet been outlined, it certainly does not represent a radical change. Trump’s White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative bears a striking resemblance to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which George W. Bush set up in 2001, and which Barack Obama continued during his administration but renamed the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In brief, Trump’s executive order — which he signed on 3 May 2018, the National Day of Prayer — replaces the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships with the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, keeping it within the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The executive order also sets out the following: Beyond that, Trump’s order is somewhat vague on the exact workings of the initiative and the duties of the advisor who will lead it: One potentially significant provision in the executive order calls for those in charge of the Faith and Opportunity Initiative to contact the Attorney General if they see potential executive branch violations of a religious liberty memorandum published by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October 2017. The Sessions memorandum reiterated the positions set out by Trump in an earlier executive order, in which the President wrote: It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom…. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. President Trump has prioritized enhancing legal protections for religious freedom, including when it comes to obligations placed on faith-based organizations that receive federal funding, the freedom of employers and employees to abstain from practices (particularly in health care) which they feel compromise their religious beliefs, and in calling for an end to the Johnson Amendment, a long-standing provision that bars religious 501 (c)(3) non-profit groups from engaging in electoral activism. In his 2001 executive order establishing the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President George W. Bush emphasized that a driving force behind the policy was a desire to “level the playing field” in the disbursement of federal funding, and enhance the funding opportunities available for religious non-profit organizations — especially those focused on poverty, addiction, crime and other social issues: The paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable community groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality. The Occupy Democrats meme is largely accurate. In May 2018, Trump did indeed establish an initiative within the White House which would give faith-based organizations what the administration called a “voice in the White House.” However, the description of the initiative as a “religious office” did not come from the Trump administration itself, and that is not its official name. Furthermore, Trump’s 2018 initiative represents significant continuity from predecessor offices set up by George W. Bush in 2001 and Barack Obama in 2009, although the exact focus, workings, and influence of Trump’s initiative remain to be seen. On 5 May, the “Being Liberal” Facebook page and web site published an article with the headline “Trump quietly signed an Executive Order allowing government to fund religious groups.” This is very misleading, and ignores the fact that the federal government has been providing grants, funding and tax write-offs to religious non-profit organizations for many years, including during the Obama administration. Trump’s creation of the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative did not usher in that state of affairs.

Ex Output:

"In May 2018, President Donald Trump established a ""religious office"" to give religious groups a ""voice in government."