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'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "Newly installed CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert tangled, politely, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on his Sept. 21 show regarding the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz, who’s running for the Republican presidential nomination, whether he could agree with Reagan’s support of ""amnesty"" for undocumented immigrants and the late president’s willingness to raise some taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said ""of course not"" before pivoting to Reagan’s most conservative accomplishments, one being that he ""signed the largest tax cut in history"" and spurred economic growth. ""When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year,"" Cruz said. ""There’s only one other four-year period where that’s true. That’s true from 2008 to 2012."" His point was that Reagan rescued the U.S. economy from the ravages it suffered under his Democratic predecessor, President Jimmy Carter, and that the only other equivalent economic distress occurred under Carter’s fellow Democrat, Barack Obama. Colbert responded, ""But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s ‘largest tax cut’ and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So it’s a matter of compromising."" We wondered if Cruz was correct about the periods of low GDP growth. (In a separate fact-check, we explore Colbert’s rejoinder.) Excepting the unusual post-World War II period of 1945 through 1949 -- when the nation was demobilizing from an all-encompassing war -- Cruz has put his finger correctly on the two general periods in which the annual average growth of gross domestic product over four-year periods has sunk below 1 percent. They are the late 1970s era of ""stagflation"" (that is, stagnant growth combined with rapid inflation) and the aftermath of the Great Recession. The full annual data can be found here. But there were actually three distinct four-year periods during and after the Great Recession that fit Cruz’s criteria, rather than one -- that is, the four-year periods starting with 2006, 2007 and 2008. (With every four-year period beginning after 2009, average annual GDP growth has exceeded 1 percent.) Here’s the rundown of the four post-World War II periods that fit Cruz’s criteria: First year Second year Third year Fourth year Average annual GDP growth 1979 1980 1981 1982 0.2 percent 2006 2007 2008 2009 0.3 percent 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.4 percent 2008 2009 2010 2011 0.4 percent So Cruz overlooked two additional four-year periods. Also, the implication of his comment -- that Democrats bear the primary responsibility for these periods of poor economic growth -- is not so clear. For starters, as we’ve discussed previously, economists say it’s hard to determine how much credit or blame a president deserves for successes or shortcomings in the economy at large on their watch. Factors outside their control, from energy-price shocks to technological changes to pure luck, can have a significant impact on the nation’s economic record. In addition, Cruz’s groupings suggest some contradictory standard-setting. For the 1979-1982 period, Carter was in office for the first two years and Reagan was in office for the third and fourth years. But in the next two periods -- 2006-2009 and  2007-2010 -- George W. Bush, a Republican, was president for at least half of the time. In fact, Bush was in charge for the first three years in 2006-2009, and the first two years in 2007-2010. If Carter, Democrat, is to take blame for the slow growth in the first period, then logically Bush, a Republican, should shoulder the same blame in the next two four-year periods. By the same token, if Reagan, a Republican, escapes blame in the first example, then so too should Obama in the second and third four-year periods. And the 2005-2008 period -- which occurred entirely on Bush’s watch -- barely escapes inclusion on this list, with an average annual growth rate of 1.13 percent. (During the 2008-2011 period, Obama was president for the final three of those years.) Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, said he doesn’t blame either Reagan or Obama for the economic shortcomings early in their tenures that fall under Cruz’s statistical claim. Still, he sees a logical inconsistency in Cruz’s comparison as stated on Colbert’s show. ""It seems doubtful whether poor economic performance early in any president's term can be attributed to the impact of his administration's policies,"" Burtless said. ""If you take office when economic output is plunging, it does not seem legitimate to attribute the economic plunge to the person who just took office."" He added a footnote: Unlike Obama, who unquestionably inherited a recession already under way, the economy actually grew through the first couple of months of Reagan’s first term. GDP grew in the third and fourth quarters of 1980, right before he was elected, and continued to grow during the first quarter of 1981 after he was in office, before a ""double-dip"" recession hit. Cruz spokesman Phil Novack told PolitiFact that our analysis misses the point. ""The focus on who exactly held office in each of those individual time periods is not as important as the contrast between the two periods in terms of how quickly the economy was growing before and after those identified time periods, which is the point Cruz was making,"" Novack said. ""His point was obviously referring to policy results, and we know the results of the policies that followed those slow-growth years of below 1 percent growth that Sen. Cruz identified. Reagan's policies brought us a boom, and Obama's policies have been a bust."" For what it’s worth, we also compared Carter and Reagan on their economic records and found them more similar than one might expect. During Carter’s four years in office, the growth rate averaged 3.23 percent a year. If you take the first four years of Reagan’s presidency, it averaged 3.34 percent. Essentially, each president had two good years and two bad years, which more or less averaged out. Our ruling Cruz said that ""when (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There’s only one other four-year period where that’s true. That’s true from 2008 to 2012."" Cruz missed two other four-year periods that fit the criteria. In addition, his implication -- that Democrats are largely to blame for those conditions -- doesn’t stand up to logical consistency, particularly when he excluded the period beginning in 2006 (which included three years solely under Bush) and 2007 (which included two years solely under Bush). This goes on top of general uncertainty about how much blame to assign presidents for poor economic conditions." Claim: When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There’s only one other four-year period where that’s true. That’s true from 2008 to 2012.

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: "The article includes price information for the drug’s likely competitor, Plavix–about $4 per day, a significant cost for a drug that is taken daily, perhaps for a lifetime. The article correctly indicates that the price of Plavix is likely to come down when it goes generic in four years. The article properly includes speculation that the pricing of prasugrel may be a key factor in its adoption, should it be approved. The reporter includes considerable data about several key clinical endpoints of both benefits and harms, in two cases using both absolute numbers of patients and percentage increase or descrease. The reporter gets extra points for including ""number needed to treat""–the number of people who would have  clinically significant outcomes for each 1,000 treated with the drug. The story is built around the question of the drugs’ risks vs. benefits. Data about harms are mentioned early and often, and described in detail. A direct comparision of the fatal bleeding rates for the two drugs would have been additionally useful. The New England Journal of Medicine article is based on results of a Phase III trial that appears to meet all the important criteria for significance: the study is prospective, the study group is large, the patients were randomized, the treatments double-blinded, the clinical endpoints signficant. While there is no placebo group, this was likely decided for ethical reasons, so all patients in the study would receive at least current best-practice treatment. The article assigns proper crediblity to the study, which to appear in NEJM has received rigorous peer review. The article does nothing to exaggerate the risk of death or the consequences of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular disease deaths. It allows the outcome figures to speak for themselves. The article quotes five experts in cardiology from different institutions, providing greater balance and context than just one or two experts would. In each case the relationship of the souce to the study and/or its funders is revealed. The considerable conflicts of interest of the investigators are made very clear. The article makes clear that prasugrel is being developed as an option to Plavix, and that Plavix with aspirin is currently best-practice treatment. The article makes clear that the drug prasugrel is not FDA approved and that its approval is uncertain. The article makes clear that this is a drug that is very similar to Plavix, and that it may be marginally more effective. No claims of novelty are made. The companies’ joint press release, an enthusiastic announcement about the drug’s benefits, bears little resemblance to this story." Claim: Blood drug trades benefit for risk

Answer: 2


Question: Paragraph: The ruling Communist Party’s Politburo said on Friday it would step up macroeconomic policy adjustments and pursue more proactive fiscal policy, state media reported. With the world’s second-biggest economy expected to shrink for the first time in four decades this quarter, China is set to unleash hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus. The Politburo called for expanding the budget deficit, issuing more local and national bonds, guiding interest rates lower, delaying loan repayments, reducing supply-chain bottlenecks and boosting consumption. “We expect government ministries to roll out more tangible measures in the coming weeks as this Politburo meeting gave them no choice but to do more,” Goldman Sachs analysts said. The Politburo did not elaborate on plans for the central government to issue special treasury bonds, which would be the first such issuance since 2007. China should issue at least 2 trillion yuan ($282 billion) of such bonds to aid the economy, Morgan Stanley Chief China Economist Robin Xing said. Restrictions on foreigners entering the country went into effect on Saturday, as China reported no new locally transmitted infections and a small drop in so-called imported cases. Airlines have been ordered to sharply cut international flights from Sunday. Beijing has in recent days emphasized the risk posed by imported virus cases after widespread lockdowns within China helped to sharply reduce domestic transmissions. The Politburo said it would shift its focus to prevent more imported cases and a rebound in locally transmitted infections. “We must be extremely vigilant and cautious, and we must prevent the post-epidemic relaxation from coming too soon, leading to the loss of all our achievements,” the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper said in a front-page editorial. The authorities also reversed planned reopenings of movie theaters, the state-owned China Securities Journal reported, citing sources. With local transmission of the virus basically under control, China shifts focus toward rebooting paused businesses. China’s Ministry of Commerce said on Saturday nearly all of the country’s major supermarkets, convenience stores, shopping malls and farm produce retail markets have reopened, while all e-commerce platforms are operating. Meanwhile, 80% of restaurants and 60% of hotels are back in business, ministry official Wang Bin told a news conference. In a sign of businesses getting back to normal, wholesale prices of vegetables have dropped 16.5% from end-February, while pork prices have fallen 7.4% from a mid-February high. However, many street shops such as beauty salons are not yet open as “sentiment is reviving slowly, while people remain cautious about going out shopping”, Wang said. In China’s central Hubei Province, authorities had removed all highway checkpoints except those in its capital city Wuhan - the virus epicenter - and allowed traffic to leave the province as of Friday, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on Saturday. Hubei officials vowed to help businesses re-open and people get back to work. Gong Dingrong, mayor of Hubei’s Qianjiang, dubbed “lobster city”, said the government would promote sales across the country both online and offline, adding “there’s nothing to fear” eating lobsters from the city. China’s National Health Commission said on Saturday that 54 new coronavirus cases were reported on the mainland on Friday,  all imported cases. There were 55 new cases a day earlier, one of which was transmitted locally. The number of infections for mainland China stands at 81,394, with the death toll rising by three to 3,295, the commission said. Hubei province reported no new cases, and three new deaths. The province of 60 million, where the virus was first detected, has recorded 67,801 coronavirus cases and 3,177 deaths. Shanghai reported the highest number of new cases, with 17. An additional 11 cases were reported in Guangdong, six in Fujian, five in Tianjin, four in Zhejiang, three each in Beijing and Liaoning, two each in Inner Mongolia and Jilin, and one in Shandong. Chinese President Xi Jinping told U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday that China would support U.S. efforts to fight the coronavirus. The number of confirmed cases of coronavirus in the United States rose by at least 16,000 on Friday to nearly 102,000, the most of any country. George Gao, the director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, urged people to wear masks to control the virus’s spread overseas. Gao told the journal Science in an interview published on Friday that the “big mistake in the United States and Europe has been the failure to wear masks, which “can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others”. Claim: China readies stimulus measures as local virus cases dwindle.

Answer:
2