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'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: In January 2016, an event primarily dubbed the “Flint water crisis” (involving lead contamination in the city’s water supply at levels that posed a serious health danger) garnered national headlines. Although some details were murky as the situation unfolded, a number of items related to the crisis were circulated worldwide via social media. The undisputed core of the public health crisis was summed up by the New York Times‘ report that “[h]igh levels of lead had leached from pipes into the water supply” in Flint in a period beginning around April 2014:  Among the items related to the water crisis that circulated online was a piece from the Free Thought Project titled “Flint Residents Told That Their Children Could Be Taken Away If They Don’t Pay for City’s Poison Water”: There is no denying that the water in Flint is undrinkable and that it is contaminated with lead and other substances, and it is clear that the government of Flint is responsible for the problem. However, the city’s government continues to charge people for the poison water and then threatening to foreclose their home or take their children if they refuse to pay. Michigan law states that parents are neglectful if they do not have running water in their home, and if they chose not to pay for water they can’t drink anyway, then they could be guilty of child endangerment. Activists in Flint say that some residents have already received similar threats from the government if they refuse to pay their bills … Flint residents have recently filed two class action lawsuits calling for all water bills since April of 2014 to be considered null and void because of the fact that the water was poisonous. “Essentially, the residents have been getting billed for water that they cannot use. Because of that, we do not feel that is a fair way to treat the residents,” [attorney Trachelle] Young added … Despite the fact that the issue is obviously the government’s responsibility, they have made it illegal for people to sell their homes because of the fact that they are known to carry contaminated water. Meanwhile, residents are still left to purchase bottled water on their own, in addition to paying their water bill. The article confusingly vacillated between assertions supported by a largely undisputed chain of events (i.e., the water supply in Flint had been compromised for some time, and its effect on families was severe) with alarming but unsubstantiated claims (i.e., CPS was threatening to remove children affected by the crisis). The headline clearly stated that residents of Flint had been threatened with the intervention of Michigan’s Children’s Protective Services (CPS) agency if they refused to pay for water that was clearly not potable, but we were unable to locate any other account reporting on what would be an extraordinary scenario. The Free Thought Project excerpt reproduced above was the sole source for this otherwise uncited claim. A careful reading of the text suggests that the site perhaps extrapolated two unrelated factual items to form a third hypothetical conclusion: It was true the Flint water crisis was unresolved at the time the article was published, and that Michigan’s Department of Health & Human Services’ (MDHHS) list of possible red flags for child abuse or neglect allows the inference that a lack of running water in a home is grounds for investigation and removal of children. Page 15 of a publicly available document titled “Mandated Reporters’ Resource Guide” [PDF] further describes scenarios under which mandated reporters are obligated to contact CPS and file a report. Appendix 2, Section I (physical neglect), portion A pertains to neglect with respect to living conditions: under a list of items by which mandated reporters can observe potential conditions of neglect, “running water in the home” is listed as a potential signifier. As such, the above-excerpted item quite possibly extrapolated its conclusion based on the existence of the Flint water crisis and demonstrated standards of child abuse and neglect evidenced by Michigan’s documentation of those criteria. If so, the item made a significant leap between something that could conceivably happen (children’s being removed from homes due to a lack of running water under normal circumstances) and something that might be far less likely to happen (CPS’ tasking itself with imposing upon the crisis in the city of Flint by using its scant resources to target families and children already burdened by an ongoing and unprecedented contamination of Flint’s water supply). We were unable to find any other reporting of such claims aside from ones citing The Free Thought Project, nor could we locate any independent, anecdotal reports claiming that CPS was removing children from homes “without running water” in Flint. We contacted several divisions of MDHHS to determine whether there was any truth to the claim that CPS has removed children for reasons directly related to the Flint water crisis, or whether any such information or demands had been transmitted to families in Flint with respect to the water crisis. Under normal circumstances, the lack of running water in a home could certainly serve as grounds to initiate an investigation or even trigger removal of children from their home until basic living conditions are restored to the satisfaction of agencies tasked with ensuring children are safe from abusive or neglectful homes. Given widespread coverage of the Flint water crisis and its ongoing nature, the assertion doesn’t make much plausible sense (nor does it seem likely CPS could have the manpower to engage in such a large undertaking). The existence of such a crisis in Flint and its effect on the city’s residents are not in dispute and reasonably warrant alarm, but unsupported claims exacerbating concern and anxiety are not helpful to the residents of Flint or other people seeking credible information about the extent of an ongoing public health incident. In response to our inquiry, a representative from Michigan’s Department of Health & Human Services confirmed children are not removed from homes solely due to a lack of running water (due to the current situation in Flint, or otherwise): We do not petition a court for removal solely because of lack of water. Instead CPS works to make sure the children have water – by having them apply for State Emergency Relief, or making sure they have access to water at a relatives’ home or bottled water. On 26 January 2016, MDHHS Children’s Services Agency provided us with a statement from executive director Steve Yager. Yager’s statement confirmed no such complaints or removals occurred due to the Flint water crisis: MDHHS has not assigned a single Children’s Protective Services complaint due to any issues related to Flint water. MDHHS works proactively to assist families whose water is shut off and to ensure families have water filters and bottled water in Flint. When a family is without water, our goal is to help that family provide clean water for their children. That can be through assisting families in applying for State Emergency Relief, setting up plans for children to access safe water at a relative’s home or providing bottled water. We do not petition the court to remove a child solely for the lack of water in a family’s home. We also contacted the author of the original The Free Thought Project article for additional information supporting the claim. He directed us to the above-quoted MDHHS guidelines, as well as the article’s embedded RT video. In that clip, a Flint resident speculated that refusal to pay water bills could result in the eventual removal of children due to a lack of running water in the home: Claim: Residents of Flint, Michigan have been threatened by CPS with removal of their children if they refuse to pay for contaminated water.

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story did not provide cost estimates for either approach; the story did mention that the through-the-wrist approach was associated with shorter hospital stays (and therefore reduced costs.) There was no discussion in the story about whether there are different costs associated with the procedure itself. The story explained that the through-the-wrist approach was associated with lower risk of bleeding and shorter hospitalizations but should have included a caveat explanation about the strength of research and that the results of the study reported on require follow-up investigation. The story mentioned risk of bleeding at the site of catheter insertion as a possible harm of treatment which was greater for those who had a the catheter inserted in the leg. To its credit, the story provided absolute risk information, i.e. pointing out the 60% reduction in bleeding was the difference between 2 and 1% of patients having this complication. The story did not mention whether there were any particular side effects or harms associated with catheter insertion at the wrist. The story explained that the study was an analysis of information contained within a national registry. But it should have explained that this is the weakest type of study from which to draw a clinical conclusion (such as this procedure is safer or as safe as the alternative). Thus the statement in the story ‘both methods were equally effective’ should have been more tentative. The underlying weakness of the study, that it is not a controlled trial, may mean that the patients who had the wrist approach had something else about them that helped to reduce risk and that the researchers may not have been able to take into consideration. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included interview material from one clinician who was not associated with the study reported on. The quality of the piece would have been improved if it had included input from physicians who might have explained some of the reasons why not all interventional cardiologists use the wrist approach. The story did an adequate job of reporting about a recent study comparing two approaches to angioplasty. The story indicated that the angioplasty using access through the wrist as opposed to a leg, was used much less frequently.vThe story explained that extra training is required in order to use this procedure and many doctors are not trained in this technique. This would contribute to the procedure’s limited availability. The story did a good job of explaining that neither of the two approaches compared were new and that the point of the study was to determine how the two sites compare in terms of their use. The story does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release. Claim: Angioplasty through the wrist backed by new study

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "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." Claim: I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor.

Ex Output:

2