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'.

[Q]: Paragraph: U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren became the subject of increased scrutiny and rhetorical attacks from the right in January 2019, after she declared she was in the running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. Against that background, a viral meme re-emerged on social media that attributed an eye-catching viewpoint on abortion to the Massachusetts senator: “‘Having an abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed.’ — Liberal Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren. Yes, she really said this and is really this damn crazy and stupid.”  In reality, Warren did not make these remarks. On 24 July 2018, an opinion column she wrote was published in Marie Claire magazine, one speculating that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice would create a conservative-leaning majority on the court that could bring a reversal of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision: “The threat of overturning Roe v. Wade is also serious. When abortions are illegal, women don’t stop getting them — they just risk their lives to do it. Today, thanks to Roe, getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out. Before Roe v. Wade, many women turned to back-alley butchers to end their pregnancies.” In September 2018, the pro-life website LifeNews published an article that created a misleading impression of what Warren had actually said under the headline “Elizabeth Warren Compares Abortion to ‘Getting Your Tonsils Out. '” That article went on to state that “A pro-abortion Democrat from Massachusetts, Warren even likened the killing of an unborn baby in an abortion to getting tonsils removed.” In January 2019, the right-leaning NewsTarget website went even further in misrepresenting Warren’s actual remarks, with an article that carried the headline “Senator Elizabeth Warren likens an abortion to getting your TONSILS YANKED, because population control freaks think human babies in the womb are just worthless tissue.” Actually, Warren was making a very different point. Her column linked to a Time magazine article about a 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. The lead author of that study, Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, told Time that the rate of complications observed after abortion procedures was lower than that seen after wisdom tooth removals and tonsillectomies. That’s a point Upadhyay has made elsewhere in support of the comparative safety of abortion procedures, and in opposition to laws restricting access to abortion or imposing stricter requirements before a woman can undergo the procedure. In an op-ed published by USA Today on 21 January 2019, Dr. Upadhyay wrote:  “Advocates of these [restrictive] laws usually use the misconception that abortion is unsafe to make arguments in favor of admitting privileges requirements and other abortion restrictions. In reality, less than one-third of 1 percent of abortions result in a major complication. Abortion is safer than wisdom tooth extraction and tonsillectomy, so it’s clear that these laws aren’t actually about protecting patients. Indeed, my research shows these policies have no observable effects on patient safety.”  So when Warren wrote that “getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out,” she was making a point about the relative safety of the procedure as part of a broader argument in defense of Roe v. Wade. Claim: "Sen. Elizabeth Warren once said: ""Having an abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed."
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "Native American tribes have been among the hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. ""Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,"" Biden told The Arizona Republic May 21. ""He took more than a month to allocate Congress’ emergency funding to tribes — and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. It’s unacceptable."" Indian treaty rights recognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States’ protection. Under a ""trust responsibility"" legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes. That consultation process started before the lawsuit over the delay in payments. A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasn’t until May 5 that the Treasury Department said it would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Biden’s claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to the Alaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of ""tribal government,"" or ""Indian tribe"" and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at ""a later date"" based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back ""until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved."" The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5 said the judge’s April 27 ruling ""led to the (Treasury) Department’s announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes."" In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor ""arguably should have produced better results,"" but a court intervention was not warranted. ""‘Egregious’ delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis,"" U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11 opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was ""lagging unreasonably"" behind in delivering the funds. ""The Secretary has not been ‘twiddling his thumbs’,"" he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, ""then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today."" Biden said Trump ""took more than a month to allocate Congress’ emergency funding to tribes — and only did so after tribes sued."" It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued." Claim: Joe Biden Says President Donald Trump “took more than a month to allocate Congress’ emergency funding to tribes — and only did so after tribes sued.”
[A]: 2


[Q]: Paragraph: Several now-viral videos posted to Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok in May 2020 showed small insects crawling along the outside of strawberries after the fruit had been soaked in a saltwater solution. Collectively, the videos received hundreds of thousands of views and sparked many questions about the methodology. Social media users filled a bowl with water and table salt. Once the salt had dissolved, strawberries were said to have been submerged in the solution for “about 30 minutes” after which point small “worms” could be seen crawling around the outside of the berry. WAIT FOR IT… Still trying to think happy thoughts today. #fyp #foryou #strawberrieswithbugs #bugsinstrawberries #rednoseday #got2bhome  ♬ original sound – callmekristatorres    Though it is true that strawberries and other fruit may house small insects and the saltwater method is largely used by the agricultural industry as a way to detect such infestations, entomological experts at Oregon State University told Snopes that there is no scientific evidence that suggests a saltwater solution can, in fact, force pests out from infested berries. The insect in question is an invasive flying pest called spotted wing drosophila (SWD), or Drosophila suzukii. Endemic to Asia, SWD was first detected in North America in California in 2008 and has since spread to many regions of the United States where the insects are known to infect fruit crops and berries, according to Michigan State University (MSU). Female flies lay their eggs in fruit where they will ultimately hatch into a delectable habitat prime for larval feeding. If the pest is not controlled through mitigation measures, MSU adds that it is possible fruit may be harvested with larvae inside. Despite a lack of published scientific evidence, the saltwater method is one most often employed by commercial growers in order to determine whether an SWD infestation has occurred, but berry lovers of any sort can also use it to detect creepy crawlies. Claim: A saltwater solution will force insect pests out of infested strawberries. 
[A]:
1