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.

Example Input: According to two studies published on Wednesday, DNA from these pre-modern humans may play a role in the appearance of hair and skin as well as the risk of certain diseases. Although Neanderthals became extinct 28,000 years ago in Europe, as much as one-fifth of their DNA has survived in human genomes due to interbreeding tens of thousands of years ago, one of the studies found, although any one individual has only about 2 percent of caveman DNA. “The 2 percent of your Neanderthal DNA might be different than my 2 percent of Neanderthal DNA, and it’s found at different places in the genome,” said geneticist Joshua Akey, who led one of the studies. Put it all together in a study of hundreds of people, and “you can recover a substantial proportion of the Neanderthal genome.”  Both studies confirmed earlier findings that the genomes of east Asians harbor more Neanderthal DNA than those of Europeans. This could be 21 percent more, according to an analysis by Akey and Benjamin Vernot, published online in the journal Science. Still, “more” is a relative term. According to the paper by geneticists at Harvard Medical School, published in Nature, about 1.4 percent of the genomes of Han Chinese in Beijing and south China, as well as Japanese in Tokyo come from Neanderthals, compared to 1.1 percent of the genomes of Europeans. Anthropologists expressed caution about the findings. Fewer than half a dozen Neanderthal fossils have yielded genetic material, said Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in  St. Louis, one of the world’s leading experts on early humans. Using this small sample to infer how much Neanderthal DNA persists in today’s genome is therefore questionable, he said. As expected, since Neanderthals never existed in Africa, Africans and those who trace their ancestry to that continent have almost no Neanderthal DNA, the Harvard team found. Human ancestors began migrating out of humanity’s natal continent as early as 1 million years ago, paleoanthropologists infer from fossil evidence, and between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago evolved into the robust, large-browed Homo neanderthalensis in Western Europe. Ever since scientists extracted DNA from the remains of Neanderthals, they have known that people today carry snippets of cavemen genes, in the amounts of 2 percent to 3 percent. That clinched the case that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, probably 40,000 to 80,000 years ago, soon after the latter arrived in Europe from Africa. The new studies add details about how much DNA and of what kind we inherited. “The story of early human evolution is captivating in itself, yet it also has far-reaching implications for understanding the organization of the modern human genome,” Irene Eckstrand of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research, said in a statement. “Every piece of this story that we uncover tells us more about our ancestors’ genetic contributions to modern human health and disease.”  The Harvard team used a novel genetic algorithm to estimate the probability that a particular genetic variant arose from Neanderthals. Basically, they started with the genome of a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal, and determined whether pieces of it also appeared in some non-Africans but not in sub-Saharan Africans. The algorithm identified remnants of Neanderthal DNA, called alleles, in genes associated with type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, lupus, biliary cirrhosis and smoking behavior. “But we can’t tell if the Neanderthal alleles are contributing to disease,” said Harvard’s Sriram Sankararaman, lead author of the paper in Nature. Areas “with increased Neanderthal ancestry tend to be higher the farther away you go from genes,” sitting, instead, in regions of the genome that do not actually produce the proteins, enzymes and other working molecules of the body. Neanderthal DNA does sit within some genes, however, such as those for keratin, a fibrous protein that makes skin, hair and nails tough and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation. The endurance of this Neanderthal DNA suggests that our caveman inheritance was adaptive, picked by natural selection to persist in our genome, generation after generation, because it conferred a survival advantage in individuals who carried it. The Harvard team analyzed the genomes of 1,004 people to estimate which populations got more or fewer Neanderthal DNA. Confirming a 2013 study, they found more in the genomes of east Asians than in Europeans. But they also dug deeper. Puerto Ricans and Spaniards have the least Neanderthal DNA, 1.05 percent and 1.07 percent respectively. That is curious because Neanderthals made their last stand on the Iberian peninsula, finally dying out there 28,000 years ago. Across all populations, Neanderthal DNA is conspicuously low in regions of the X chromosome and in testes-specific genes. The paucity of Neanderthal genes among those active in the testes suggests that interbreeding wasn’t a resounding success: It produced viable children, but the males were infertile. Although as much as 20 percent of Neanderthal DNA persists in modern genomes, according to the Washington scientists, vast regions of the latter are Neanderthal deserts. Among them is a region of chromosome 7 that includes a gene called FOXP2. “FOXP2 has previously been implicated in speech and language and may be an example of a gene that influences a uniquely human trait, which is why we find no Neanderthal sequences in these regions,” said Akey.
Example Output: Modern humans more Neanderthal than once thought, studies suggest.

Example Input: "In a Dec. 15, 2015, interview with actress and writer Lena Dunham in Lenny Letter, Dunham’s feminist email newsletter, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards discussed testifying to Congress, running Planned Parenthood in the wake of the shooting in Colorado Springs and her experiences fighting for reproductive rights. Their conversation came as Republicans in Congress continued to seek an end to any federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the same year videos released by an anti-abortion group purported to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the use of fetal tissue in medical research. Federal funding to Planned Parenthood does not go toward abortions and is instead used to fund the organization’s other services, such as sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, mammograms and contraceptive services. In the interview, Dunham asked Richards about changes in the politics of abortion rights over Richards’ nine years as president of Planned Parenthood. Richards, eldest daughter to Ann Richards, the late former Texas governor, replied by mentioning the partisan realignment of legislatures in 2010, which mostly benefited Republicans, and the Republican Party’s national shift to the right. ""But if you look at the people in this country,"" Richards continued, ""they are supportive of safe and legal abortion. They support Planned Parenthood. I was just looking at the recent numbers. More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress."" Those numbers, Richards said, show that ""just because the politics are going one way, it’s not because that’s where the people are."" Where the people are is a pretty broad assessment. We focused on whether Richards was right about the relative popularity of Planned Parenthood and unpopularity of Congress. Congressional approval Congress hasn’t been widely admired very often. As we noted in a December 2014 story, the Gallup polling organization started inquiring into attitudes toward Congress in 1974. Its results show Congress never proving very popular, except after the 9/11 attacks, when there was a spike to 84 percent of respondents approving of the job Congress was doing. The most recent Gallup poll available at the time of Richards’ interview placed public approval of Congress at 11 percent. (After that, according to Gallup, support edged up to 13 percent.) The poll, conducted from Nov. 4 to Nov. 8, 2015, asked respondents, ""Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"" A whopping 86 percent disapproved, and 3 percent had no opinion. Eleven percent approval was a low point for Congress in 2015. Twenty percent approved of Congress in February 2015, and 19 percent approved in May 2015. Approval of Congress declined starting in May 2015, reaching 14 percent in August 2015 and 13 percent in October 2015, before hitting 11 percent the next month. A poll released Dec. 3, 1015, by Rasmussen Reports placed public support for Congress even lower: 9 percent of likely voters said Congress was doing a good or excellent job according to Rasmussen’s methodology, which in 2015 often returned lower favorability numbers than Gallup’s polls. Support for Planned Parenthood funding In reviewing the other end of Richards’ claim, we recognized two ways to gauge ""support"" for Planned Parenthood. Polls in 2015 inquired into U.S. attitudes about ending federal aid to the group and about general feelings about the group which, we’ve noted, provides family planning and other women’s health services, including abortions. Planned Parenthood, asked for the factual backup to Richards’ statement, pointed us to several surveys showing support for the group itself and support for its funding as well as opposition to shutting down the government rather than continuing its aid. An Oct. 14, 2015, PolitiFact Wisconsin fact-check found True this September 2015 claim by Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore: ""60 percent of all Americans do not want to see Planned Parenthood defunded."" Three September 2015 surveys--similarly cited by Planned Parenthood when we made our recent inquiry--seemed to back Moore’s claim: • A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of adults asked: ""Would you favor or oppose totally eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventative health services?"" Sixty-one percent of respondents opposed eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood. • A USA Today/Suffolk University poll of likely voters asked: ""Do you think all federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be cut off: yes or no?"" Sixty-five percent said no. A similar poll conducted in December 2015 saw that number down slightly at 58 percent. • A Pew Research Center poll tied Planned Parenthood funding to a possible government shutdown in its question but got a similar result: 60 percent of adults said any federal budget agreement to avert a government shutdown would have to maintain funding for Planned Parenthood. Another survey, however, did find support for eliminating Planned Parenthood’s funding. Released Dec. 2, 2015, the poll from the Robert Morris University Polling Institute found that 53.3 percent of respondents supported defunding Planned Parenthood, and 31.5 percent opposed it. The RMU polling institute speculated in its news release that the starkly different response stemmed from the wording used in the polling question. The RMU poll asked respondents: ""Congressional Republicans favor shifting Planned Parenthood federal funds to community clinics that perform the same services, but do not perform abortions. Would you say you support or oppose this plan?"" Other polls generally asked a version of the question, ""Do you think all federal funding to Planned Parenthood should be cut off?"" without mentioning clinics, services, or abortions. The RMU poll stood alone in finding support for defunding Planned Parenthood. Support for Planned Parenthood Survey questions asking directly about support for Planned Parenthood in itself — rather than its government backing — had positive responses, at lower numbers than the 60 percent mark. These polls all asked a version of the simple question, ""Is your opinion of Planned Parenthood favorable or unfavorable?"" An Oct. 6, 2015, poll by Rasmussen Reports, which Planned Parenthood also shared with us, found that 53 percent of likely voters had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, with a margin of error of 3 percent. A Bloomberg National Poll in November 2015 got 50 percent favorability for the organization, with the same margin of error. A Sept. 28, 2015, poll from Quinnipiac University delivered lower numbers: it found that 44 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Planned Parenthood, compared with 39 percent unfavorable, with a 2.5 percent margin of error. The lowest favorability ratings came from a September 2015 CBS News/New York Times poll, which found 40 percent in favor and 27 percent not in favor. Thirty-one percent in that poll said they did not know enough to answer the question. By email, Planned Parenthood media relations assistant Claire Barnes pointed to an Aug. 5, 2015, NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that put Planned Parenthood’s favorability ratings in context. The poll found Planned Parenthood’s 45 percent favorability rating was higher than favorability ratings for the NRA, the Supreme Court, Bernie Sanders, President Barack Obama and several Republican presidential candidates included in the survey. Our ruling Richards said that more than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood, and only 11 percent approve of Congress. Richards had a bead on Congress, which was wallowing in 11-percent approval territory in November 2015. In addition, most polls suggested more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. Still, there’s clarification missing. While more people look favorably on Planned Parenthood than not, polls indicated, that was the opinion of 40 percent to 53 percent of Americans--not more than 60 percent. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."
Example Output: More than 60 percent of people in America support Planned Parenthood and only 11 percent approve of Congress.

Example Input: The first full week of state legislative sessions and swearings-in for governors saw a flurry of proposals. In his initial actions, newly elected California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans to expand Medicaid to those in the country illegally up to age 26, implement a mandate that everyone buy insurance or face a fine, and consolidate the state’s prescription drug purchases in the hope that it will dramatically lower costs. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee proposed a public health insurance option for people who are not covered by Medicaid or private employers and have trouble affording policies on the private market. Democrats in several states where they now control the legislature and governor’s office, including New Mexico, are considering ways that people who are uninsured but make too much to qualify for Medicaid or other subsidized coverage can buy Medicaid policies. And in the nation’s most populous city, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a publicly run plan to link the uninsured, who already receive treatment in city hospitals, with primary care. It’s all in keeping with the main theme Democratic candidates promoted on the campaign trail in 2018. They touted the benefits of former President Barack Obama’s health overhaul — such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ health insurance policies and expanded coverage options for lower-income Americans. At the same time, they painted Republicans as seeking to eliminate or greatly reduce health care options and protections. “Once you give something to somebody, it’s pretty hard to take it away, and I think we see that with how the support for the (Affordable Care Act) has grown over the last two years,” said Washington House Rep. Eileen Cody, who is leading the state’s public option proposal. The actions also represent a pushback to steps taken by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to undermine the Affordable Care Act. The GOP tax law stripped away the individual mandate, which was intended to stabilize insurance markets by encouraging younger and healthier people to buy policies. And last summer, the Trump administration said it would freeze payments under an “Obamacare” program that protects insurers with sicker patients from financial losses. That move is expected to contribute to higher premiums. The Democratic proposals fall short of providing universal health care, a goal of many Democrats but also an elusive one because of its cost. In recent years, California, Colorado and Vermont have all considered and then abandoned attempts to create state-run health care systems. Still, many Democrats are eager to take steps that get them closer to that. “This is not just a moral right,” Inslee said in announcing his public option proposal this past week. “It is an economic wisdom, and this is very possible.” Some lawmakers in Colorado, where Democrats now control the legislature and the governor’s office, are proposing a state-run health insurance plan similar to that announced by Inlsee. It would reach those who don’t qualify for federal assistance or who live in rural areas with few health care choices. Both states plan to rely on their agencies that administer Medicaid, the state-federal program that provides health coverage for roughly one-in-five Americans. Republicans are skeptical about whether the states can afford it, since they already pick up a portion of Medicaid costs. “This is about having the government competing in the private market. Medicare-for-all will be priced out,” Washington state Rep. Joe Schmick said. Taking incremental steps to increase coverage options and make health care more affordable may be a smarter strategy than pursuing a costly and complicated all-or-nothing proposal for universal coverage, said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “Everybody wants to pay less for health care,” she said. Democrats now have more leverage to experiment. Campaign messaging around health care helped them flip seven governor’s seats to bolster their numbers to 23 across the country and win back several state legislative chambers. They gained full control of state government in several states, including New York and Nevada. That power will allow them to consider health care expansions that Republicans have resisted. In Nevada, for example, the state’s Democratically controlled legislature passed a bill in 2017 that would have let anyone in the state buy into a Medicaid insurance plan, similar to the option being pushed in New Mexico. But former Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, vetoed it. The new governor, Democrat Steve Sisolak, is forming a committee to look at health care options, including the possibility of requiring everyone to have insurance. In addition to the California proposal, that mandate already is in place in Massachusetts and New Jersey, with Vermont following in 2020. It’s a similar dynamic in New Mexico, where Democratic lawmakers have talked for years about allowing people, including non-citizens, to buy into Medicaid if they cannot afford insurance any other way. Colin Baillio, policy director for the advocacy group Health Action New Mexico, said a bill is being drafted with the goal of getting it adopted this year and implemented for 2020. The optimism comes because the new governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, is a Democrat. “Folks are going to need to have health care one way or another,” he said. “We think health coverage is a good investment for our state.” ___ Follow Sally Ho at https://twitter.com/_sallyho and Geoff Mulvihill at https://twitter.com/geoffmulvihill
Example Output:
Democrats roll out big health care proposals in the states.