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 Q]: According to the story, brand-name aromatase inhibitors cost between $340 and $420 a month, but the story also points out that lower-costing, generic versions are available in the U.S. It would have been useful had the story also provided cost information for the other preventive drug options, tamoxifen and raloxifene. A particular strength of this story is its presentation of data. Dr. Winer, an independent source included in the story, translates a 65% risk reduction to mean that exemestane may reduce a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer from 3% to 1%. Not only does the story provide absolute risk, but it also presents the number needed to treat. According to the study authors, 26 women would need to take exemestane for five years to prevent a single case of breast cancer. It should be noted, however, that few women in the study completed five years of therapy. Since this is being used as a preventive measure in healthy women, side effects are very important and data should have been provided. The story indicates that “slightly” more women taking exemastane experienced hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia, and joint pain, compared to those taking placebo pills. It would have been helpful to note, for example, that 40% in the exemestane group experienced a hot flash versus 32% in the placebo group. Citing older research, the story indicates that that joint pain, muscle aches, problems having sex, and vaginal dryness may be more evident with a longer duration of use. The story makes it clear that the study was a large-scale, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, which enrolled over 4500 women in North America and Europe. The women included had at least one risk factor for breast cancer. It also notes that given the significant risk reduction associated with exemestane, the study was stopped after 3 years to give women in the control arm the option of taking exemestane to prevent possible breast cancers. More information regarding participants’ characteristics, including age and race would have been helpful. This story did not engage in disease-mongering. In addition to including experts not affiliated with the exemestane study, the story also notes that the it was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Avon Foundation, and Pfizer. In addition, the writer points out that the study lead and a few other authors have received speaking fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies that make cancer drugs. This story compares the benefits and harms of exemestane with tamoxifen; however, a mention of how these compare with raloxifene, would have been useful. The availability of aromatase inhibitors is not in question. It’s clear from the story that aromatase inhibitors are currently used to prevent breast cancer recurrences. It’s also clear that this is the first study evaluating its utility for preventing the first instance of breast cancer in healthy women with a higher risk of developing the disease. The story does not appear to be based on the press release.
[EX A]: Hormone-blocking drug reduces breast cancer risk

[EX Q]: "Bounciest Democrat on November's statewide ballot? It might be Hank Gilbert, making his second hard charge for state agriculture commissioner versus Todd Staples, the Republican who topped him four years ago. Gilbert, ever prowling for issues, recently trumpeted that the Texas Department of Agriculture is looking at buying thousands of stress balls -- squeezable toys. He said in a Sept. 24 press release: ""Make no mistake, Texans love their balls: footballs, baseballs, basketballs, and soccer balls. But 300,000 stress balls? It seems a little extreme, but that's the quantity of grape, barbell, and book-shaped polyurethane stress balls the Texas Department of Agriculture could be spending taxpayer dollars on...""  Really? To our inquiry, Gilbert's campaign provided Web links to the agriculture agency's June request for bids as well as a September post on a state website indicating that a $99,000 contract to provide promotional materials was awarded to a Massachusetts company, Oceans Promotions. We downloaded the June 29 bid-request package from a site for state requisitions overseen by the state comptroller's office. The package shows the department was seeking bids to provide up to 300,000 stress ""relievers,"" which we're guessing are not balls because they're not round. Precisely, the package says, the agency sought bids to make ""promotional items with logo imprints to follow through on (the) TDA Food and Nutrition Texans Bring It Campaign,"" with the items to include grape-shaped stress relievers with ""Texans Bring It"" written on them or ""Eating Right,"" which would be made of polyurethane and be two inches high by three inches wide. The package says a second set of stress relievers, each one called ""Dumbbell,"" would be imprinted ""Texans Bring It"" and ""Exercise"" and be five inches high by 1.8 inches in diameter. A third stress reliever would be imprinted ""Book"" and ""Texans Bring It,"" according to the bid package, while other promotional items would include pencils, buttons and bumperstickers. The package says the bids were sought for various quantities, starting from 2,500 and topping out at 100,000 each. It electronically links to a Branders.com site showing what the agency wanted the stress relievers to look like (our interpretation: bunches of purple grapes). Is all this a real deal? To our inquiry, Bryan Black, Staples' spokesman, replied via e-mail: ""An invitation for bid was issued for these federally funded educational items to reduce the $5.8 billion avoidable health care expenditures, paid by taxpayers, associated with overweight and obesity health problems."" We followed up with Black, asking if it's accurate to conclude that up to 300,000 of the stress relievers are being purchased. We also wondered why the purchase was being made. Black said he'd limit his comment to his e-mailed statement. Surely the agency would pipe up if Gilbert got its purchase plans wrong."
[EX A]: Hank Gilbert Says the Texas Department of Agriculture seeks to purchase up to 300,000 promotional stress balls.

[EX Q]: An early-stage cloned embryo called a blastocysts is pictured in this undated handout photo. In a separate vote, parliament also decided to allow parents of children suffering serious diseases to use in-vitro fertilisation to select “savior siblings” who can act as donors for transplants to save their sick brothers and sisters. Parliament defeated an amendment to ban inter-species research — in which human DNA is injected into cells derived from animals — by 336 to 176 after hours of impassioned debate on ethics versus science. The vote means Britain retains its status as a world leader in stem cell research. Human-animal embryo research is banned in some countries including Australia, France, Germany and Italy. Prime Minister Gordon Brown supports the creation of human-animal or “admixed” embryos but some Roman Catholic members of his government oppose the research. Brown allowed members of parliament to vote by conscience rather than on party lines. “If we want to sustain stem cell research and bring new cures and treatments to millions of people, I believe admixed embryos are necessary,” Brown argued in a newspaper article. The human fertilisation and embryology bill prohibits the transfer of the embryos to a human or animal and says they cannot be used for research beyond 14 days. The bill, which updates 1990 laws, is at committee stage when amendments are tabled and will be subject to a final vote in coming weeks. Two groups of scientists have already been given permission to create human-animal admixed embryos. The bill legalizes their research within set guidelines. Some researchers say allowing admixed embryos would open more avenues as they seek cures for conditions like motor neuron disease or Parkinson’s. They say their creation would help ease a deficit of donated human eggs for stem cell research. But other scientists and religious leaders say that creating human-animal embryos is unethical, and using them for research is a blind alley that won’t cure disease. One Catholic cardinal called the research “Frankenstein science”. David King, director of the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, said he feared sufferers of Alzheimer’s and other diseases were being offered false hope. “It is very sad that all these patient groups have been hyped up to believe in this stuff. They are going to be very disappointed. It is very unfair,” he told reporters. Parliamentarians also defeated an amendment which would have banned the creation of “savior siblings” — babies born from embryos selected through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) because they are a tissue match for a sibling with a genetic condition. Supporters say this will help children who cannot find matching tissue donors, but critics worry about the impact on children who have been born to improve a sibling’s health, particularly if the treatment fails. The embryology debate will continue on Tuesday when members of parliament will vote on moves to end the need for IVF clinics to consider a child’s need for a father. This would ease restrictions on lesbian couples and single women but opponents argue that a child needs a father. Parliament will also vote on Tuesday on abortion laws. Some MPs are seeking to lower the 24-week time limit for abortions. Brown favors the status quo.
[EX A]:
UK parliament backs human-animal embryo research.