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'.

Paragraph: Costs are not mentioned but we’ll let this pass since it’s reasonable to assume the approximate pricing of most of the dairy products tested are widely known. Main findings mentioned include: Readers are given no sense of just how much the risk is increased or decreased in these groups. The only data provided from the study is this: The risk of CHD was 26% lower in those men who consumed the highest amount of low fat (<3.5%) fermented dairy (compared to the lowest consumption group). It would be difficult for many readers to put that number into context without knowing how much low-fat/fermented dairy was consumed. Some data contained in the study might have helped put the numbers in context. According to the tables in the published manuscript, there is a modest reduction from 14 CHD events per 1,000 person years in the low intake group (of fermented dairy) to 10 CHD events per 1,000 person years in the high intake group (of fermented dairy). Since readers might interpret this study’s results as supporting consuming more fermented dairy (much of which contains saturated fats), not mentioning the potential harms of consuming too much saturated fats is a shortcoming. There are three major limitations of this study that aren’t mentioned. First, this is a prospective cohort study that can’t completely control for other health variables in the subjects being responsible for some of the changes observed. Second, the use of a food questionnaire (even with some supervision by nutritionists) is not a completely reliable way to document dairy intake; especially when trying to pinpoint amounts and subtypes of dairy. Finally, the cohort studied (Eastern Finnish men, ages 42-60) is a very specific subgroup. This limits the generalizability of the results. The news release addresses none of this. In the published manuscript the authors describe differences in smoking rates and other dietary patterns in the men who consumed more or less of the dairy types. These other differences could have accounted for all of the differences in this observational study. No disease mongering is noted in this news release. Nor does the release provide any context on the prevalence of  coronary heart disease. Funding for the study is not mentioned. Review of the authors does not reveal any major conflicts of interest. The headline suggests fermented dairy products may protect against heart attacks, but does not mention any other common sense steps that may be protective. Exercise, not smoking, and a prudent plant-based diet are other habits known to be associated with lower risk. Fermented dairy products are widely available and the news release does clearly outline several types. The news release claims that the new research gives more weight to earlier study findings. It states: “earlier studies have shown that fermented dairy products have more positive effects on blood lipid profiles and on the risk of heart disease than other dairy products.” And that “The new study provides further evidence on the health benefits that fermented dairy products may have over non-fermented ones.” Links to the earlier studies would have been helpful. As yet, it’s still speculative to claim that fermented dairy products lower the risk of CHD. No overtly unjustifiable language was used. We appreciate mention of the fact that the possible mechanisms for explaining the study’s findings are not completely understood. Claim: Fermented dairy products may protect against heart attack
0

Paragraph: On December 18, 2018, a spate of posts and articles about fast food chain Popeye’s new “emotional support chicken” appeared on social media:The move appeared to be a stunt that was either tasty or tasteless, depending on your perspective. Although several general news outlets posted about the Popeye’s product, readers and social media users remained on high alert for leg pulls and marketing stunts based on the topics of the day — in this case, the ongoing controversy around emotional support animal companions and air travel:Delta says it saw an 84 percent increase in reported incidents involving service and support animals in 2016 and 2017. According to the trade group Airlines for America, airlines in the US saw a 74 percent increase overall in emotional support animals from 2016 to 2017. This increase has caused other major airlines including American and United to tighten their policies.Even if you haven’t encountered a nonhuman passenger on your own flight, you’ve probably heard one of the viral stories about one, which seem to surface every few weeks. In January [2018], a woman was barred from bringing her emotional support peacock on a United flight, even when she offered to buy the bird its own seat.Likely owing in part to the evergreen popularity of the debate, Popeye’s advertisement of a new purported product relating to emotional support animals proved popular on social media:Sorry, Fido. Popeyes #EmotionalSupportChicken doesn’t bark on the plane. (Available in the Philadelphia airport on 12/18.) pic.twitter.com/vWyBWq4PTe— Popeyes Chicken (@PopeyesChicken) December 18, 2018Popeye’s issued a press release on December 18, 2018 about its purported new product:There is no doubt the holiday season is one of the busiest and most stressful travel times of the year. The airports are crowded, the delays are frustrating, and travelers are stressed about getting from point A to point B with gifts in hand. This year, POPEYES® is launching “Emotional Support Chicken” to provide a good-hearted laugh most need to get through stressful holiday air travel. Starting Tuesday, December 18 [2018], travelers passing through Philadelphia International Airport can purchase their fried chicken meal with an “Emotional Support Chicken” carrier at the Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen in Terminal C to bring with them on their flight.Emotional support animals provide comfort and companionship, especially during a highly stressful time like air travel. However, according to recent headlines, some travelers are pushing the envelope with the types of animals they try to bring on flights and classify as “emotional support animals,” including the likes of peacocks, squirrels and tarantulas. Knowing this, Popeyes decided to launch its new “Emotional Support Chicken” to bring holiday travelers some humor to what is one of the most stressful places to be during the holidays – the airport.As is often the case with headline-grabbing fast food news, Popeye’s “Emotional Support Chicken” promotion was a bit overhyped for its real-world impact. The product was only available at one location (Philadelphia International Airport), and only while supplies lasted. Overall, the announcement largely served to get Popeye’s a bunch of news mentions, with little substance behind the novelty item. Claim: "Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen is selling ""emotional support chicken"" for weary flight passengers."
2

Paragraph: On June 9 2020, Facebook user Xavier Dillingham shared the following Twitter screenshots, which purportedly showed Google search results for the terms “professional hairstyles men,” “unprofessional hairstyles men,”  “professional hairstyles women,” and “unprofessional hairstyles women”:Dillingham included screenshots of tweets by @Denzel_Success and @dave_fieri with a visible date on one of June 6 2020:It’s deeper than police brutality https://t.co/6bJKhJa1w3— DENZEL SMITH (@Denzel_Success) June 6, 2020Hold up pic.twitter.com/xBBR8OZ7Cr— DAVE FIERI ❼ (@dave_fieri) June 6, 2020One of the screenshots visible in the Facebook post appeared to show at least one result specifically about the matter of Google’s purported racial bias in organizing images of men’s and women’s “professional hairstyles” and “unprofessional hairstyles.”When we searched “professional hairstyles men” on June 19 2020, the results were primarily of white men:As was a search for “professional hairstyles women”:When we searched “unprofessional hairstyles men” and “unprofessional hairstyles women,” the results appeared to have been altered by discourse on social media. For the second search, a number of collages appeared, along with links to content about bias in Google results:We also found discussions about the matter going back for years. On April 6 2016, Mic.com covered the same issue in an article titled “If You Google ‘Unprofessional Hairstyles for Work,’ These Are the Problematic Results,” reporting that April 2016 results included versions of the same hairstyle for both searches:The people in a search for professional hairstyles are predominantly white. Conversely, people in searches for unprofessional are mostly black — though for some reason, Elizabeth Banks as The Hunger Games’ Effie Trinket makes a surprise appearance.Twitter user MalumDube pointed out the irony of a similar style worn by Rachel McAdams was somehow deemed “unprofessional” when worn by a black woman.British outlet The Guardian published an editorial about the April 2016 controversy, in which the author described clicking through some of the images and explained their occasional context:In the case of the great hair debate, Google Images seems to have taken many of the pictures of black women wearing the “unprofessional” hairstyles were from blogs, articles and Pinterest boards. Many of these are by people of colour explicitly discussing and protesting against racist attitudes to hair. One image led me to a post criticising Hampton University’s ban on dreadlocks and cornrows; another was linked with a post celebrating natural hair and the “ridiculous” pressure to straighten it for the office; here’s a rejection of the idea that big, natural curls are “distracting” in a newsroom.One thing was clear between the 2016 popularity of a Google image search for “unprofessional hair men/women” and “professional hair men/women” — viral discourse in both instances appeared to influence the images returned by Google in both cases. Collages we found in the results on June 19 2020 often accompanied reporting on the Google results, pushing down what may have been earlier, accurately described results before tens of thousands of Google users tested the hypothesis.On June 10 2020, The Shade Room published a statement from Cathy Edwards, Vice President of Google Images, about the discussion. Edwards reiterated the claim that articles decrying descriptions of black women’s natural hair as “unprofessional” made up some but not all of the images:Google spoke exclusively to us to explain these image results, which are usually linked to articles that are actually denouncing the biases that black men and women face when it comes to their hair and society’s idea of what professional hair is supposed to look like.“Our Google Images search systems rely on a number of factors, including word matching, to surface results,” Cathy Edwards, VP of Google Images, tells us. “For many of the results, the words ‘unprofessional hairstyles’ appear in the articles, and many of these stories are rightly denouncing the discrimination people of color face when it comes to their hair.”While the images may be alarming, for the purposes of clarity, Google has taken the liberty of adding captions to help people under the relevancy of the images.“While we include captions to help people understand why these images are relevant to the query, we acknowledge that the association can be concerning and painful to see without the fuller context,” Edwards said. “Ensuring that all people and communities are able to find helpful results in Google Images is something we care about deeply and are actively working to improve.”Rating the veracity of the claim that Google search results for the terms “professional hairstyles men,” “unprofessional hairstyles men,”  “professional hairstyles women,” and “unprofessional hairstyles women” demonstrated racial bias was difficult due in part to how viral the claim became. Facebook posts and tweets with tens of thousands of shares reshuffled the results, and Google could have changed their algorithms in the two-week period between the June 6 2020 tweets and our June 19 2020 fact check. It is true that some of the results remained (and were the subject of scrutiny in 2016), but the results we evaluated were influenced by the interest generated by the claims — and other forces that remained invisible.Comments Claim: "If you Google ""unprofessional hairstyles for men"" and """"unprofessional hairstyles for women"" or ""professional hairstyles for men"" and ""professional hairstyles for women,"" results appeared to be racially biased."

1