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]: "State lawmakers have left Albany for the year without taking up a bill that would extend the statute of limitations for child sex abuse victims. Current law allows those victims to bring criminal charges against their alleged abuser until the age of 23. The Child Victims Act would extend the age to 28 and create a one-year revival period for past cases regardless of when they happened. Victims could also bring civil cases until age 50. The bill passed in the State Assembly with the support of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, but was blocked by Republicans in the State Senate. Comedian Samantha Bee took aim at the Senate on her weekly late-night talk show last week. ""I don't want you to think the New York Senate is anti-child,"" Bee said. ""This session they passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Anyone who does not follow New York state politics closely may be surprised by the claim. Those inside what’s known as the ‘Albany bubble’ were most likely not. But Bee is known for comedy. Some may have seen her claim as satirical. Were those bills a joke, or was Bee talking about legislation that actually passed the Senate? Snowmobile racing The Senate passed a bill in March that would allow people under the age of 18 to compete in organized snowmobile racing events without a safety certificate from the state. Current law requires anyone under the age of 18 to take a state-approved safety course before they ride a snowmobile. Anyone under 14 has to also be supervised by an adult when riding. The regulations do not apply if the minor rides on land owned by their parent or guardian. The bill would throw out those rules as long as the minor is participating in a snowmobile racing event. The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Betty Little of the North Country, passed the 63-member Senate with 49 votes. The Assembly did not take up the bill. Looser hunting restrictions Another bill, passed by the Senate in June, would allow 12-year-olds to get a universal hunting license by lowering the age for some hunting activities. You can start hunting when you are 12 in New York, but certain restrictions remain until the hunter is 14. The bill would drop the age from 14 to 12 for someone to participate in muzzle-loading season, obtain muzzle-loading privileges, hunt with a crossbow, and hunt big game. The child would have to be supervised by a parent or youth mentor. The sponsor, Republican Joseph Griffo, says in the bill’s memo it’s intended to give parents the opportunity to teach children about hunting at a younger age. The bill passed the Senate with 53 votes. The Assembly did not take it up. Begging for money The third bill targets people who use children to panhandle on the street. It’s already illegal for someone to use a child to beg for money but the crime is under the state’s arts and cultural affairs law instead of the penal law. This bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jeffrey Klein of the Bronx, would transfer the crime to the penal law and strengthen the penalty for repeat offenders. The bill says someone cannot ask or allow a child under 16 to beg for money or receive payment for ""picking rags, or collecting cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" That provision has actually been in state law since 1971. It’s part of a broader law that bans children from doing several things for money. Among the more interesting: children cannot be employed as tightrope walkers and cannot receive money for displaying a physical deformity. The Klein bill to move the crime to the penal law passed the Senate in June with 55 votes. The bill was not taken up in the Assembly. Our ruling Comedian Samantha Bee said the New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Each of the bills is real and passed the Senate this year. Her claim is ."
[A]: "The New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."


[Q]: Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis issued statements saying they will vote against Dourson to serve as head of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Environmentalists and Senate Democrats have vehemently opposed Dourson, a toxicologist with close ties to the chemical industry. That means only one more Republican “no” vote would likely be needed to torpedo his nomination. Moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters Thursday she is also leaning against supporting Dourson, but has not yet made a final decision. The White House and EPA did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday or Thursday. Despite the fact he hasn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate, Dourson has already been working at the agency as a senior adviser to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The agency’s press office did not respond to emails seeking how much he is being paid. The Associated Press reported in September that Dourson has for years accepted payments for criticizing studies that raised concerns about the safety of his clients’ products, according to a review of financial records and his published work. Past corporate clients of Dourson and of a research group he ran include Dow Chemical Co., Koch Industries Inc. and Chevron Corp. His research has also been underwritten by industry trade and lobbying groups representing the makers of plastics, pesticides, processed foods and cigarettes. Burr and Tillis, both of whom are considered reliably pro-business conservatives, cited Dourson’s past work and worries among their home-state constituents about tainted drinking water in opposing his nomination. “Over the last several weeks, Senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr. Dourson’s body of work,” said a statement from Tillis’ office. “Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination.” Marine veterans and their families blame decades-old contamination of wells at a North Carolina base with solvents and dry-cleaning chemicals for infant deaths and serious health problems that include cancer. More recently, concerns have been raised about undisclosed discharges of chemicals used to manufacture Teflon and GoreTex into the Cape Fear River, a source of municipal drinking water for Wilmington and other southeastern North Carolina communities. Dourson worked at the EPA for more than a decade, leaving in 1994 as the manager at a lab that assessed the health risks of exposure to chemicals. The following year, he founded Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, a private toxicity evaluation nonprofit organization that tests chemicals and produces reports on which chemicals are hazardous in what quantities. Dourson’s views toward industry are consistent with others Trump has selected as top federal regulators. Among them is Pruitt, who in March overruled the findings of his agency’s own scientists to reverse an effort to ban chlorpyrifos, one of the nation’s most widely used pesticides. Court records show Dourson and his work have often been called on when his corporate clients are seeking to fend off lawsuits. DuPont was accused of polluting a West Virginia town with Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a chemical that the company’s internal tests had long ago concluded was toxic. Corporate officials discussed hiring Dourson as part of a strategy to defend themselves. Dourson led a team that found in 2002 that PFOA levels up to 150 parts per billion were safe, a level higher than was found in testing of 188 private wells and springs. That was also well above the 1 part per billion that Dupont’s own scientists had concluded could be considered safe years before. The EPA now says that only 70 parts per trillion of PFOA are acceptable — or only 0.05 percent of what Dourson’s team said was safe. DuPont and a former subsidiary, Chemours Co., later paid $761 million to settle 3,550 lawsuits stemming from its use of the chemical. Chemours is the company whose spills of a chemical called GenX, a replacement for PFOA, are now at issue in North Carolina’s Cape Fear River. “I will not be supporting the nomination of Michael Dourson,” said Burr, the state’s senior senator. “With his record and our state’s history of contamination at Camp Lejeune as well as the current GenX water issues in Wilmington, I am not confident he is the best choice for our country.” The stand was quickly praised by environmental advocacy groups that rarely find common ground with the two Tarheel Republicans. “No one who has spent decades arguing on behalf of the chemical industry for weaker safety standards should be charged with reviewing chemicals for the EPA,” said Scott Faber, a senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “It would be like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.” ___ Follow Associated Press environmental reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck
[A]: Trump EPA nominee opposed by GOP senators from NC.


[Q]: There’s little need to discuss costs of a substance as well known as coffee. The story does a good job of describing groups for comparison: coffee-abstainers, light drinkers (1-6 cups per week), and heavier drinkers (>2 cups per day). However death rates were presented as relative risk. How many of the 18,000-plus subject died during the average 16 years they were followed? What does “18% less likely to have died” look like in absolute numbers? Coffee does have adverse effects, such as insomnia, increasing anxiety, and triggering reflux in certain people. However, the story made no mention of coffee’s downsides. The story makes clear how large the study was, what the methodology was, and that other big risk factors for early death such as smoking were taken into account. Also, the story makes clear that no one is recommending coffee-drinking as a mode to prevent chronic diseases that lead to early death. And it includes a clear caution regarding the limitations of observational studies: “Though the two studies involved hundreds of thousands of people, they weren’t designed to show that drinking more coffee caused people to live longer; that would require a randomized trial.” And yet, it’s important for journalists to avoid language that undercuts this important message. The headline, suggesting that coffee is “good for you” makes a clear cause-and-effect leap. And the use of a hedge like “might” in the following sentence isn’t enough to offset the clear cause-and-effect implication — i.e. that coffee is responsible for “extending” your life. “The best thing about your coffee habit might be that it extends your life by reducing your risk of death from heart disease, diabetes or even cancer.” We’ll rate this a very marginal Satisfactory with room for improvement. Coverage at the BBC, for example, was more successful at capturing the nuances of observational evidence, starting with the headline: “Coffee drinkers live longer – perhaps.” No fear-mongering here. The story includes perspective from an editorial that accompanied the studies in the journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine. And that’s enough for a satisfactory grade. Reaching out to more sources, and actually talking to experts in this field, might have turned up additional insights worth sharing with readers. The story makes clear that the claims of benefit — reduced mortality — are not a reason to drink coffee. Instead the findings suggest there are no long-term effects that should scare coffee-drinkers away from their habit. In any case, the situation does not call for a comparison with alternative methods of living longer. We’ll rate this Not Applicable. Coffee is so widely available that there’s no need to make the point. The story makes clear how the National Cancer Institute study extends previous research on coffee’s health effects from studies of mostly white European-descent subjects to a multi-ethnic population. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
[A]:
Two big studies bolster the claim that coffee – even decaf – is good for you