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.

[Q]: This is a sentence spoken by Trump, not a piece of modernist stream-of-consciousness pastiche. pic.twitter.com/vfhdKzg9Uy — Stig Abell (@StigAbell) August 9, 2016  On 19 July 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appeared at Sun City’s Magnolia Hall in South Carolina to deliver a noontime speech. The event was an otherwise unremarkable campaign stop, save for one portion of Trump’s speech (transcribed below) in which he apparently started out attempting to criticize the nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran but veered into a minute-and-a-half long sentence that spanned his uncle’s academic qualifications, his own education, Democrats’ denying Republicans’ credentials, the power of nuclear technology, the number of American prisoners freed by Iran in conjunction with the nuclear deal, and the adeptness of “Persian” negotiators (particularly women), before circling back to how the Iranians “killed us” in the nuclear deal:   “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”  The one thing that puzzles us the most about this sprawling statement is this: Donald Trump’s late uncle, Dr. John Trump, was indeed a renowned professor at MIT, and among his many notable contributions to science were developing methods for treating cancer through radiation and studying how to radiate deep tumors without harming nearby healthy tissue. But what did he reveal to his nephew about “nuclear” 35 years ago that it would have been surprising for anyone to think of?
[A]: A tweet reproduces a 90-second long sentence from a Donald Trump speech.


[Q]: The delicacy, long a feature on the menu of gourmet restaurants across the globe, is made by force-feeding geese to turn their livers to fat, a process long denounced as cruel by animal rights activists and increasingly viewed with unease by authorities in some western cities. In October, New York City, often considered the U.S. fine dining capital, prohibited the sale of foie gras, following similar bans in Chicago and the state of California. In response, French scientists at research company Aviwell near Toulouse have developed an alternative version of the delicacy that uses bacteria - ingested by the goose as a serum - to stimulate a natural, rather than forced, build-up of fat. “It’s the combination of certain bacteria that is capable of triggering in baby geese the natural composition, and completely biological growth, of fat in the liver,” company co-founder Remy Burcelin said. Aviwell raised 600 geese when it launched its project last year, and Fosserie has now become the first foie gras farmer to adopt the technique, which also doubles the birds’ average lifespan from three to six months. “It’s the future, because we see the animal welfare movement getting bigger and bigger,” she said. This next-generation foie gras will be aimed primarily at the U.S. market and Europe, where Britain, Finland and Poland have banned its production. But the French culinary establishment is taking note too. Toulouse chef Simon Carlier, who has been creating dishes with Aviwell’s foie gras for a month, described it as subtle and with an appealing density. It could be served cold or just with little garnishing. “We see a texture, which is less nauseating, let’s say. We can’t compare it to meat - but in some way, it’s easier to eat,” Carlier said. It will also be more expensive. While high-quality traditional foie gras sells for about 300 to 400 euros  ($330-440) per kilo (2.2 lb), Aviwell’s version could fetch 1,000 euros. A naturally fatty goose liver weighs 300-400 grammas while that of a force-fed goose can weigh around 1 kg.
[A]: Force-feeding off menu as France trials 'naturally fatty' foie gras.


[Q]: Hooray! Unlike the WebMD story, this story includes cost information. “The price for IBS treatment hasn’t been determined, he said. But the price listed at Drugstore.com suggests it’s not cheap, with a two-week supply of the dosage used in the study costing $910, or about $21 a pill.” By providing the price and actually showing readers (and other reporters) the source for the price, the story puts the antibiotic treatment into perspective and goes part of the way toward helping readers judge how cost-effective this treatment may be. Unlike the WebMD story, which took too long to present any of the data, this story attempts to quantify the benefits in the second sentence. “In two large studies, 41 percent of the patients who took the antibiotic rifaximin said their symptoms substantially improved, compared to 32 percent of those who got fake pills. Their relief lasted for up to 10 weeks.”  The story makes no mention of harms other than antibiotic resistance. Instead, the story says the drug “also been safely used elsewhere for more than two decades.” But readers should be told explicitly what side effects were found in the study. The story adequately addresses the number of patients studied, the duration of study and the study endpoints. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It says that IBS is “a poorly understood and painful condition that especially afflicts younger women” and says that IBS affect as many as 1 in 5 Americans.”  Better than the WebMD story on this count as well, AP explains that the non-constipation form of IBS is “the most common form.” The only researchers quoted in the story are researchers who do drug-company-funded research on IBS drugs. The lead author is identified this way: “Dr. Mark Pimentel, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles,” and only much later does it say, “The studies were paid for by the Salix, based in Raleigh, N.C. Some of the researchers were Salix employees and others had received consulting and other fees from the company. Cedars-Sinai holds a patent on the use of rifaximin for irritable bowel syndrome.” The story should have said clearly, as the WebMD story did, that Pimentel serves as a Salix consultant and sits on its scientific advisory board. The story also quotes Dr. Jan Tack, “of the University of Leuven in Belgium.” It makes no mention of the detail noted in the WebMD story: that Tack has worked as a scientific advisor to companies evaluating IBS treatments. The final quarter of the story is devoted to Amy McMahon, “who developed the disorder about four years ago.” It says, “She tried a variety of treatments, changed her diet, and saw a number of specialists before Pimentel prescribed the antibiotic about a year later. “I felt remarkably better” after one treatment, said McMahon. So here you have a drug-company funded researcher providing a success-story-patient for a quote. The story could have included other patients who saw no relief or no patients at all. This skews the entire perspective of the story. A more representative picture would have been presented by including one of the vast majority who saw no improvement from the antibiotic. Slightly better than the WebMD story. It says, “What causes the disorder has been a mystery; sensitivity to certain foods or stress are among the theories. Patients are typically told to change their diet, reduce stress and take medicines or fiber supplements to ease symptoms.” There is no quantitative statement about relative effectiveness of the existing approaches, but they are mentioned and it is clear that symptom reduction is the best that can be offered. The story explains that: “In the U.S., rifaximin is approved for traveler’s diarrhea and for a complication of liver disease. Salix Pharmaceuticals, which markets rifaximin under the name Xifaxan in the U.S., is seeking to expand its use to IBS. A decision from the Food and Drug Administration is expected in March, said William Forbes, executive vice president and chief development officer for Salix.”  Taking predictions from a company exec about when the FDA might act would not result in a good batting average over time. This story, at least, quoted the author of an accompanying editorial saying that he thought the treatment was novel. The story does not rely on a news release.
[A]:
Antibiotic eases common stomach pain, studies find