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: Top doctors fighting Ebola quickly used the case on Tuesday to press the message that people can recover from the potentially deadly disease if they seek proper care. Ebola is dangerous but it is also curable with correct treatment, said Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe, director of Congo’s National Institute for Biomedical Research. “Ebola kills quickly and Ebola heals quickly. That’s the message,” said Muyembe, at a press conference in Goma. “These cases were detected very quickly. The husband was infected, he was at home for 10 days and his wife and son were infected,” said Muyembe. “As soon as the response teams detected these cases, they brought them here to the treatment center. We gave them treatment that is effective and here in a short time both are cured.” Muyembe said two new drugs “are now be used to treat Ebola patients because, according to the studies and the results we obtained in the lab, these are the two drugs that are effective.” Muyembe and other scientists announced this week that preliminary results from two trials in Congo found two drugs — made by Regeneron and the U.S. National Institutes of Health — seem to be saving lives. Researchers said more study is needed to nail down how well those two compounds work. The drugs are antibodies that block Ebola. In the trial, significantly fewer people died among those given the Regeneron drug or the NIH’s, about 30%, compared to those who received another treatment. Esperance Nabintu rejoiced that she and her young son had survived Ebola. “May the Lord be praised, I thank the Lord very much. I and my child were sick with Ebola, but God has just healed us. “My brothers, we must not doubt. Ebola exists, “said Nabintu, whose husband was the second Ebola victim to die in Goma. No other Ebola death has been detected since then. After a public announcement that Nabintu and her son, Ebenezer Fataki, 1, had recovered from Ebola, the response team accompanied the two former patients their home in the Kiziba area, where the medical team educated the residents about proper Ebola treatment. There is less danger that Ebola will spread through Goma, the capital of North Kivu province with more than 2 million inhabitants, because about 200 contacts and suspected cases have been identified and have received proper medication, said Muyembe. He said people arriving in Goma are being monitored at the city’s entry points. “People who come from Beni and Butembo (nearby cities where there are many Ebola cases) must be carefully examined, “said Muyembe. “All of the 200 contacts we are following are doing well. We are waiting until the end of the 21-day surveillance period. We are at day 13, so there are still 8 days to go before we can say that Goma has won against Ebola.” Health officials have also vaccinated tens of thousands of people in Congo and surrounding countries in an attempt to stop the outbreak, but the virus has now continued to spread for more than a year. Response efforts have been repeatedly hampered by attacks on health workers and continuing mistrust among the affected communities; many people in the region don’t believe the virus is real and choose to stay at home when they fall ill, infecting those who care for them. ___ Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa
Example Output: 2 Ebola patients in Congo “cured” with drugs, say doctors.

Example Input: In July 2020, readers asked us about news articles claiming that a couple in Radcliff, Kentucky, had been placed under house arrest for refusing to sign an agreement to self-isolate and quarantine, after one of them tested positive for COVID-19. Elizabeth Linscott told WAVE 3 News that, although she had no symptoms, she got tested for COVID-19 as a precaution before a planned visit to her parents in Michigan in July. According to Linscott, after she tested positive the “health department” sent her a document for her signature, in which she was asked to “agree to comply to call the health department … prior to leaving my house for any reason.” Linscott told WAVE 3 that she refused to sign the document because of a provision that she said required her to notify public health officials in advance of traveling to the hospital for care, but that she was not refusing to self-isolate in principle, adding “I have to go to the ER, if I have to go to the hospital, I’m not going to wait to get the approval to go.”  Linscott’s husband Isaiah said that a few days after his wife refused to sign the agreement, officers from the Hardin County’s Sheriff’s Department and a public health official visited the family’s home and produced three written orders, for the couple and their daughter, effectively forcing each of them to quarantine at home. WAVE 3 reported that the Linscotts were “ordered to wear ankle monitors.” The family’s story was covered by national news outlets including The Associated Press, Fox News, and the New York Post. In response to our inquiries, the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office confirmed, without naming the Linscotts, that on July 16 its officers had “delivered Notices and Orders to Isolate and Quarantine,” as a result of a court order. In response to our inquiries about the Linscott case, the Hardin County District Court provided Snopes with a copy of the three isolation orders that the Sheriff’s department served upon the Linscott family. The isolation orders, dated July 16 and signed by Hardin Circuit Court Judge Ken Howard, specify that each of the Linscotts were ordered to isolate at home for 14 days, by virtue of a petition from the Lincoln Trail District Health Department, which covers several counties including Hardin County. That petition outlined the following: The “Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order” asks the recipient to agree to several provisions, including: “As long as I do not require hospitalization, I will self-isolate at home, reducing contact with all others as much as is practicable” as well as “I will not leave my house without the approval of the Department for Public Health” and “I will not travel by any public, commercial or healthcare conveyance such as ambulance, bus, taxi…without the prior approval of the Department for Public Health.” On July 15, the district health department filed its petition with Hardin Circuit Court, and the following day Judge Howard issued an injunction ordering the Linscotts to comply with the provisions of the order. The ruling was based in part on the “nature of the disease,” as well as Linscott’s positive diagnosis, of course, but Howard also specified that his decision to grant the isolation order was also partially based on Linscott’s “conduct,” noting that she had “declined to voluntarily agree to isolate… and has conveyed that she will leave her home to get supplies and do errands which she considers necessary.” Howard also ordered the couple to wear ankle monitors, to be installed by a company called Envivo Health, and ordered the district health department to pay for the monitors and ensure the family has “adequate provisions of food, medicine or other necessities during the period of confinement.” The isolation order issued by the district health department, and the injunction signed by Howard, were both based on Kentucky state law. Specifically, Chapter 212, Section 245(6) of the Kentucky Revised Statutes states that: “County, city-county, and district health departments may: […] Issue written orders directed to the owner or occupant of any property, or to any person, firm, or corporation whatever, commanding, within the time and manner specified in the order, compliance with applicable public health laws of this state and all regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services or the county board of health. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section and KRS 212.210, any health officer may institute and maintain mandatory or prohibitory injunction proceedings in the appropriate Circuit Courts of this state to abate nuisances that are or may be a menace to the health of the people of the state or community, and to compel compliance with the public health laws of this state and the rules and regulations of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the county board of health and the orders described in this section or in KRS 212.210.” Title 902, Chapter 2, Section 50 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations further states that: “Whenever any person has been implicated as a possible reservoir or possible source of infection of any communicable disease, the local health department or the Cabinet for Human Resources shall employ such measures as are necessary to secure adequate isolation, restriction of employment or other control procedures that may be necessary to insure cessation of transmission of infection.” Based on the evidence provided to Snopes by the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office and Hardin Circuit Court, it’s true that the Linscotts were indeed ordered to remain confined to their home for 14 days, after Elizabeth Linscott contracted COVID-19 and subsequently refused to sign a “Self-Isolation and Controlled Movement Agreed Order.” Hardin Circuit Court did indeed order the couple to be fitted with ankle monitors to ensure their compliance, and the isolation order papers were given to Isaiah Linscott during a visit from the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office. Most of the basic facts of the case were therefore accurately reported in the news articles mentioned above.
Example Output: A Kentucky couple were placed under house arrest in July 2020 after a woman diagnosed with COVID-19 refused to agree to self-isolate because it would require her to get prior approval to go to the hospital.

Example Input: All three stories at least mentioned the total amount of money being spent on nicotine replacement products or the growth in that spending. None of the stories actually explained how much these products cost or compared them to the costs of cigarettes. The cost of an 8-week regimen of nicotine patches is $160-200. The story was less successful than the other two in quantifying the benefits. It did not put any hard numbers to the findings, saying instead, “At each stage, about one-third of the people trying to quit had relapsed, the study found. The use of replacement products made no difference, whether they were taken for the recommended two-month period (they usually were not), or with the guidance of a cessation counselor. One subgroup, heavy smokers (defined as those who had their first cigarette within a half-hour of waking up) who used replacement products without counseling, was twice as likely to relapse as heavy smokers who did not use them.” While using vague terms like “twice as likely” may make the story a little less daunting for some readers, we think that a story on a scientific study, especially a study as controversial as this one, should provide the actual numbers from the study as much as possible. Also, all three stories failed to make it clear whether the same 30% or so of people continued to relapse throughout the study or whether a total of two-thirds of the participants fell back to smoking. None of the stories mentioned the potential harms from taking nicotine, as opposed to quitting cold turkey. Nor did they mention the additional risks associated with continuing to smoke instead of making use of a more successful smoking cessation program that would actually help a smoker quit. As the leading risk factor for early death, smoking should be stopped as quickly and effectively as possible. As with the other two stories, this one provided the basic outlines of the study protocol, but, unlike the other two, it did not provide more than make a vague mention of a potential flaw in the study’s design. None of the stories, either, made any attempt to discuss whether the previous evidence in favor of nicotine products could have been unduly influenced by the makers of the products. We did appreciate, though, that this story noted that earlier studies had shown “the products have proved effective, making it easier for people to quit, at least in the short term.”  This places the current study into perspective since it looked at long term outcomes at 5 years. We could go either way with this score, but we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. No disease mongering. This is the only one of the three stories we reviewed that did not quote someone directly connected to GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of some of the best selling tobacco replacement products. Several independent sources were quoted. The story lists a range of alternative factors for successful smoking cessation at the end of the piece: “Motivation matters a lot; so does a person’s social environment, the amount of support from friends and family, and the rules enforced at the workplace. Media campaigns, increased tobacco taxes and tightening of smoking laws have all had an effect as well.” This isn’t quite a comparison with nicotine products, but we give the story credit for covering some of this territory. This story talks about the sales figures for nicotine products as one indication of widespread availability and use. The story does a great job pointing out how this study fits into the recent history of similar research into the topic. The story did not rely on any press release.
Example Output:
Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt