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]: The story doesn’t mention cost at all. Since Lucentis can cost $2,000 per injection, that’s a significant oversight. It would also be useful to tell readers how Lucentis injections compare with the cost of laser treatment. The benefits are, for the most part, reasonably well explained. But those explanations lack numbers to back them up and are overstated in at least one place. “One benefit discussed in the release is that study participants who received laser treatment were more likely to suffer peripheral vision loss than participants who were treated solely with Lucentis — although this isn’t quantified. A second benefit was that participants who received laser treatment were more likely to require subsequent surgery to remove blood from the eye — and this was quantified. But the release pushes things a bit when it comes to vision, or visual acuity. The release states: “At two years, vision in the Lucentis group improved by an average of about half a line on an eye chart, compared with virtually no change in the laser group.” But here’s how the journal article puts it: “There was no statistically significant visual acuity difference between the ranibizumab and PRP [laser] groups at 2 years. The language in the journal article itself stresses that what was being evaluated was whether Lucentis was at least as good as laser treatment — and they found that, after two years, the visual acuity of patients who took Lucentis (and had no laser treatment) was as good as patients who had the laser treatment. The release could have simply stated this and avoided confusion. In short, this was a close one — but the lack of numbers on peripheral vision and the overstatement of the visual acuity results make this a “Not Satisfactory.” The release mentions that one study volunteer in the Lucentis group developed an eye infection and stated that “serious systemic adverse events,” namely cardiac arrest and stroke, occurred at similar rates among the two groups undergoing the two different procedures. We’ll rate that satisfactory for the disclosure although the release might have gone even further by mentioning the other side effects named in the study including inflammation and elevated intraocular pressure which occurred in both treatment groups. The release does a good job of describing the study design, the number of participants, and the fact that this was a randomized clinical trial. A few words about the limitations of the study — e.g. the investigators and patients could not be masked to which treatment they were getting, would have be useful as well. No disease mongering here. The release does tell readers that the study was funded by the National Eye Institute. However, it does not make clear that Lloyd Paul Aiello — who is quoted in the release — was also a co-author of the journal article. The release also fails to mention that several co-authors receive research funding or consulting fees from Genentech, which developed ranibizumab and markets it in the U.S., and Novartis, which markets the drug outside the U.S. The release does a good job of comparing Lucentis to conventional laser treatment for PDR and we’ll award a Satisfactory rating on that basis. However, we’d note that these are not necessarily the only two options. Lucentis is classed as an “anti-VEGF” (anti- vascular endothelial growth factor) drug — by blocking a protein called VEGF, the drug can reverse abnormal blood vessel growth and decrease fluid in the retina. Other drugs in this category include Avastin and Eylea. Are those drugs under consideration for trials related to PDR treatment? If so, it’s worth mentioning — particularly since Avastin costs around $60 per dose, as compared to Lucentis’s $2,000 per dose. The release notes that Lucentis is already used to treat other diabetes-related eye problems, and “should be considered a viable treatment option for people with PDR.” The clinical trial at issue here appears to be the first to look at the use of Lucentis as a treatment for PDR, particularly in a randomized study with direct comparison to laser treatment. However, the release doesn’t tell readers that. On the other hand, the release does make clear that this is the first significant advance in clinical treatment for PDR since the 1970s — that’s good context. The release does a good job of avoiding hype and explaining what was a complex study.
[EX A]: Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

[EX Q]: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.
[EX A]: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

[EX Q]: "Gov. Bruce Rauner’s signing of a controversial abortion bill last month triggered an avalanche of protest from his fellow Illinois Republicans and anti-abortion groups, who said he had betrayed them. The bill, House Bill 40, removed a ""trigger provision"" in Illinois law that would have made abortion illegal should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade. It also made abortion eligible for coverage under Medicaid in Illinois and under the state’s employee health insurance plan. Opponents were angry that Rauner broke a promise he made five months earlier to veto the bill because of its Medicaid and insurance component, which for the first time would use state taxpayer funds to pay for abortion outside of cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother. They also claimed Rauner reneged on a campaign pledge that he had ""no social agenda,"" which they interpreted as Rauner having no plans to change the state’s abortion laws. In a Sept. 28 press conference in which he announced his intent to sign the bill, Rauner lamented that he could not convince Democratic lawmakers to split the legislation into separate bills, one covering the trigger provision and the other dealing with insurance coverage. But he defended his action as consistent with his pro-choice principles. ""I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor,"" Rauner said. Rauner’s statement sent us combing through video clips, ads and news coverage of the 2014 gubernatorial election to see if he really was consistent in presenting his pro-choice stance to voters during that hotly contested race. Here’s what we found. Rauner, a wealthy private equity investor who had never run for elected office, sought to build his campaign solely on economic, educational and political reform issues. He stated often that he had no social agenda, and his wife, Diana, appeared in a campaign ad making that very statement. This helped Rauner avoid taking a direct stand on same-sex marriage, which was a hot topic in Illinois politics in the months preceding the 2014 GOP primary for governor. In May 2013, just before Rauner formally declared his candidacy, longtime state GOP chairman Pat Brady resigned in part because of fallout from him having declared his support for same-sex marriage. Rauner’s no-social-agenda claim also proved useful when it came to navigating the political minefield of abortion. To win election in a Democratic-leaning state, Rauner needed to get votes from Democrats who support abortion rights and moderate Republicans without antagonizing social conservatives. ""My opponent is desperate for social issues to become prominent in the campaign,"" Rauner said in a campaign appearance with his running mate, Evelyn Sanguinetti, in June 2014. ""And I’ve been crystal clear: I do not have a social agenda. Evelyn and I are not running on social issues. We all have our personal beliefs. We are not advocating leading on social issues, we are fine with the status quo on that."" That said, we found several examples in which Rauner explained his position on access to abortion during the campaign. In an appearance before Wauconda Township Republicans on Oct. 2, 2013, Rauner said: ""Abortion is a tragedy. It’s a loss of life. To me that’s not debatable. However, I do not advocate making it illegal. I can’t, I won’t, I’m not going to talk about making it illegal. I’m going to work and support efforts to make it safe and rare. Parental notification, late-term restrictions, teaching abstinence outside of marriage and strongly encouraging adoption as a far better alternative."" To residents of HeatherRidge community in Gurnee on Nov. 3, 2013: ""The reality is the right for a woman to choose is the national law and we’re not gonna, that ain’t gonna change in Illinois. I think we can agree on some common-sense ways where abortion can be more rare and safe. I support parental notification. I support late-term restrictions. I strongly encourage adoption as a far better alternative to abortion. There are things we can agree on to work on to try and get done, realistically… ""I just think it’s better for a woman and her physician and her family and her minister or priest make the decision than the government. That’s my view. People can disagree with me. I respect that. But that’s my view, it ain’t gonna change."" It came up in an interview on the ""Big John and Amy Show"" on WIND-AM 560 on March 17, 2014: Amy Jacobson: ""If there was a possibility that the decision was passed from federal to state jurisdiction, what would your position be?"" Rauner: ""My position would be abortion is a tragedy but it should be an issue left to a woman with her physician and her family and her minister, not the government."" It wasn’t just the candidate himself proclaiming his ""pro-choice"" bona fides during the campaign. Diana Rauner, head of the child advocacy concern the Ounce of Prevention Fund, became a strong spokeswoman for her husband’s no-social-agenda agenda, especially where it concerned reproductive rights. ""You can trust him that there’s no way he will ever let anything happen to our reproductive rights,"" Diana Rauner said in an interview with NBC5 political reporter Mary Ann Ahern on Sept. 26, 2014. ""I actually think this is a great opportunity in this race where we actually don’t have to think about the social issues because both candidates are pro-choice."" The campaign featured a 30-second TV ad in which Diana, who claimed to be a Democrat,  sought to bring Democrats to her husband’s side by telling viewers, ""Bruce doesn't have a social agenda. He has an economic and educational agenda."" After an Oct. 24, 2014, event in Chicago in which feminist icon Gloria Steinem endorsed Quinn and accused Rauner of financially supporting anti-abortion causes and candidates. ""In terms of money and action, he is, in fact, anti-choice,"" Steinem said during her appearance with Quinn. Diana Rauner provided the response in an interview with then ABC-7 political reporter Charles Thomas. ""Bruce has a strong history of being a supporter of reproductive rights,"" she said. ""He’s a social moderate and he’s committed to education and has shown that commitment over the years."" Throughout the campaign, Rauner found himself in the strange position of being a Republican candidate forced to deny charges that he opposed abortion. Despite Rauner’s many statements to the contrary, the Quinn campaign sought to portray Rauner as a major funder of anti-abortion candidates and organizations. The Chicago Tribune story on Steinem’s appearance carried this rebuttal from Rauner’s campaign: ""Rauner campaign aides said the candidate and wife Diana have donated money to abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood and the Roger Baldwin Foundation."" The Baldwin Foundation is a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union that litigates issues including reproductive rights. At the same time, however, Rauner was a heavy donor to Republican candidates and state and national Republican organizations that were firmly in the anti-abortion camp. Chicago Magazine detailed the political/ideological conflict of the Rauners in an article published the day before the 2014 election headlined, ""Is Bruce Rauner Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, or Just an Opportunist?"" (I)t’s interesting to look at the self-proclaimed Democrat, Diana, who has given in 2014 the max in the primary and/or general to several Republicans, some who are decidedly not socially moderate...  Just a couple of examples: David McSweeney (abortion and gay marriage opponent), Mark Neerhof (against gay marriage). Diana has also given generously ($10,000 in 2012; $5,300 this time around) to the Republican Renaissance PAC of the late ultra-conservative Jack Roeser (anti abortion, anti gay marriage). Bruce has a much more extensive record of contributions—including $27.6 million to himself, $5 million to the state Republican party, and also, along with Diana, donations to McSweeney, Neerhof, and to Roeser’s PAC. (Roeser, who died last June, was an early Rauner backer and a member of his gubernatorial exploratory committee.) Considering the contradictory nature of the Rauners’ donations -- giving heavily to groups that support abortion rights and also to political candidates and organizations that oppose them -- it’s reasonable to believe that some anti-abortion voters might have inferred anti-abortion leanings in candidate Rauner. But we found no evidence of Rauner himself attempting to hide his  stance. In 2014, campaigning on maintaining the status quo on abortion was a viable option. State finances were a wreck and there appeared to be little pressure either way to change the state’s laws on abortion. The election of Donald Trump, who stated an intent to overturn Roe v. Wade and turn the question of abortion’s legality back to the states, changed that overnight. Almost immediately, Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly began advancing a bill to both keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade be overturned and provide insurance coverage for it under Medicaid and Illinois’ state employee health insurance. ""I look at it as an insurance parity issue. There’s no excuse about the cost,"" Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, said in December 2016. By packaging the trigger language and the expanded insurance coverage into a single bill, supporters of what became HB 40 effectively boxed Rauner by forcing the no-social-agenda governor to pick a side in the culture wars. He would infuriate pro-choice voters by either vetoing the bill outright or issuing an amendatory veto to strike the abortion insurance provision, the practical effect of which would be to kill the measure anyway. But signing HB 40 would be sure to antagonize much his Republican base, much of which remains passionately opposed to abortion. This was something Rauner had worked throughout the spring to avoid, at times sending out mixed signals about how he intended to handle the bill if lawmakers sent it to his desk. He made public statements in April promising to veto the bill as written. When he broke that promise, he faced the wrath of everyone from rank-and-file Republican lawmakers to Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich. Rauner, speaking haltingly and appearing physically uncomfortable, explained at his signing press conference that adding government funded insurance coverage was consistent with his pro-choice beliefs. ""I also believe that no woman should be forced to make a different decision than another woman make purely based on her income,"" Rauner said. ""I believe that a woman living with limited financial means should not be put in a position where she has to choose something different than a woman of higher income would be able to choose."" Bruce Rauner said his signing of a controversial abortion bill was consistent with his pro-choice principles and that he had never presented himself as anything but pro-choice. We looked through numerous campaign appearance videos, ads and news stories and found no evidence that Rauner ever tried to hide or downplay his pro-choice beliefs. In fact, his campaign touted the Rauners’ support of abortion rights groups to rebut the charge that he was not pro-choice. Rauner sought anti-abortion voters by assuring them that, as governor, he had no social agenda and that ""the right for a woman to choose is the national law and… that ain’t gonna change in Illinois."" Politically, it proved to be a smart strategy that helped gain him election in 2014. By 2017, however, it became impossible to continue finessing the issue. In picking a side, Rauner declared that he has been consistent in declaring his pro-choice beliefs."
[EX A]:
I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor.