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]: "With the coronavirus pandemic sending automobile miles plummeting — and with it, demand for gasoline — Americans are finding prices at the pump to be lower than they’ve been in years. But New York state remains on the higher end of that range. That’s what WKBW-TV, Buffalo’s ABC affiliate, reported on April 27, citing the American Automobile Association. ""New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00, according to numbers provided by the AAA of Western and Central New York,"" the report said. Is that correct? Yes. We asked AAA for the gas price data for April 27, and they provided us with the full list of 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The data comes from surveys of up to 120,000 gas stations across the country. We looked at the price per gallon for unleaded regular. Here’s the list of states, from most expensive to least expensive:  According to this list, New York, at $2.18 a gallon, was the seventh most expensive state for gasoline, trailing Hawaii, California, Washington state, Oregon, Nevada, and the District of Columbia. (D.C. isn’t a state, but we’ll grant some leeway.) The other five states with gas prices above $2.00 were Arizona, Pennsylvania, Utah, Alaska, and New Jersey. That adds up to 12 states above $2.00, as the statement said, as long as you include D.C. as a state. Three states had gas below $1.40 a gallon: Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. AAA isn’t the only source of this data. We also looked at data from the wesbite GasBuddy. GasBuddy sent us their own state-by-state prices from April 27 and it shows a similar pattern, but slightly different due to data sampling. New York, at $2.13, was one of eight states with gas prices above $2.00. In descending order, they were Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington state, Nevada, New York, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. That’s fewer than the 12 states that AAA found with $2.00-plus gasoline, but four additional states on the GasBuddy list had prices just under $2.00. Utah, Alaska, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey all had gas prices at between $1.95 and $1.95. One reason why gas prices are relatively high in New York is the tax burden, according to an interactive map produced by the American Petroleum Institute. In 2018, New Yorkers paid more than 45 cents a gallon in state taxes and 18 cents a gallon in federal taxes, for a total of 63 cents a gallon. That’s nearly twice what Ohio motorists pay in taxes. New York is one of just a handful of states where motorists pay more than 49 cents a gallon in gasoline taxes. Since the article appeared, the situation hasn’t changed much. By the following week, only 10 states had average gas prices above $2.00 per gallon, and New York remained one of them. With some states beginning to re-open portions of their economies, gasoline prices have increased slightly in some states, according to AAA and GasBuddy data. But the average price per gallon in the United States had only risen a couple of cents per gallon, In New York, the changes were also minimal. AAA had New York’s average price per gallon at $2.15, while GasBuddy had a slightly lower price, $2.12. A news report cited the American Automobile Association in saying that ""New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00."" AAA provided us the full data, confirming that the statement is correct, as long as the District of Columbia is counted as a state. Among the 50 states and D.C., New York ranked seventh highest in per-gallon prices for regular unleaded. Another gasoline price metric, from GasBuddy, had eight states above $2.00, with four additional states between $1.95 and $1.99."
[EX A]: “New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00.”

[EX Q]: Researchers set out to determine what killed coral near the $205 million dredge work at the port, which was done to make way for the larger ships sailing through an expanded Panama Canal to bring cargo to South Florida. Their study, published this month in the online journal PeerJ, compared work done in the channel to nearby coral. It puts at odds two governmental agencies that clashed over the dredge. Environmentalists had long worried that that $205 million dredging would damage the coral. The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/2gFJYNi ) reports the Corps contended a disease outbreak was responsible. State environmental regulators argued that mud stirred up by the dredge or leaked by a barge as it ferried sediment offshore smothered coral. The research team studied pictures taken before, during and after the dredge and said sediment spread across an area about 14 times bigger than the Corps permit allowed for. The study found that warm temperatures in the summer of 2014 triggered widespread bleaching and disease and the coral — stressed by the sediment — died in larger numbers than nearby coral. The project deepened the port’s channel by 6 feet, making it 52-feet deep. It completes a $1 billion makeover that includes a new tunnel at the port. “We now know the Corps dramatically underestimated both the severity and the geographic extent of the sediment impacts on the reef,” said Miami Waterkeeper Rachel Silverstein, whose group joined other conservationists in a legal fight to clean up the dredge. “The monitoring and the protocols that were supposed to protect this reef during the dredge clearly failed and this study is providing peer-reviewed, statistically valid evidence showing that impacts from the dredging resulted in widespread impacts.” Beginning in the summer of 2015, the fisheries service repeatedly warned the Corps that damage appeared to be more widespread and the agency was in danger of violating its permit. The Herald reports that the Corps also failed to provide updated surveys of the work, which prompted the fisheries service to issue a sharp letter accusing the agency of selectively choosing “certain results to downplay the permanent effects” of the dredge. Corps officials said the study used limited data and failed to distinguish between the types of sediment that buried coral during the dredge. “Drawing broad scale conclusions based on limited data is very misleading and not good science,” Corps spokeswoman Susan Jackson told the Herald via email. She said the agency is “committed to understanding potential impacts” and has expanded monitoring efforts, which include cameras on the ocean floor to record conditions. The researchers conclude that the study highlights the need to be more careful when dredging near sensitive reefs and should serve as a warning for the upcoming $374 million expansion at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. ___ Information from: The Miami Herald, http://www.herald.com
[EX A]: Study: Mud stirred up during PortMiami dredge killed coral.

[EX Q]: The story includes some pricing estimates for these products. The story is clear that – despite the claims made by some who stand to profit – there is no quantifiable information about benefits documented about these products. And there’s this closing skepticism from Dr. Lewy: “he was not sure that their other purportedly sleep-inducing ingredients like valerian root work and partly because food delays rather than hastens the absorption of melatonin.” The story explains that dessert makers “are marketing their products as a harmless way to promote relaxation.” While harms are not quantified, it’s clear from the story’s discussions about regulatory questions why that’s impossible to do right now. The harms mentioned are largely hypothetical in that there isn’t good evidence documenting these problems. But the story does a good job in painting, with broad strokes, what might go wrong if one uses these products. The story shows how evidence is elusive, partially due to the lack of regulatory clarity about the products in question. No disease-mongering in this story. Several independent experts – independent of the product manufacturers – were quoted. Not applicable. It isn’t possible to compare existing alternatives to these products because there is no information documenting efficacy of the products. The widening availability of these products is eminently clear from the story. And the fact that melatonin has not approved by the FDA as a food additive is explained. The relative novelty of these products – and their spread – is clear from the story. It’s clear that the story did NOT rely on a news release.
[EX A]:
Dessert, Laid-Back and Legal