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.

Q: On February 17 2020, an odd story came out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa via The Gazette, about the arrest of a man who allegedly forced made a woman watch the mini-series Roots so that she might better understand her own racism:A Cedar Rapids man [Robert Lee Noye, 52] who was arrested [February 17 2020] is accused of holding a woman captive and forcing her to watch “Roots” — a nine-hour miniseries that chronicles author Alex Haley’s family line from the capture and enslavement of his ancestor Kunta Kinte to the liberation of Kinte’s descendants. […]When she tried to move, Noye told her to “remain seated and watch the movie with him or he would kill her and spread her body parts across Interstate 380 on the way to Chicago,” the complaint said.Mugshots paired with a sensational headline are often employed by “fake news” or “junk news” sites imitating small local outlets, and The Gazette was a small-city paper. Because of this,  many readers encountering the story — including us — were skeptical it was authentic.Not long after its publication, the news was aggregated to other outlets across the country:A criminal complaint stated Noye forced the victim to watch the show, which is a nine-hour historical miniseries about slavery in the U.S. through the post-Civil War era, “so she could better understand her racism.”The complaint also stated the suspect told the victim he would “kill her and spread her body parts across Interstate 380 on the way to Chicago” if she did not sit and watch the show.We contacted the very responsive Cedar Rapids Police Department, and we spoke to an officer who confirmed that the report was accurate. They also sent over a brief release with additional detail about Noye’s arrest:Robert Lee Noye, DOB [redacted] age 52, was arrested for False Imprisonment and Assault Domestic Abuse Simple. The victim, a 37-year old female, was not allowed to leave a room where the suspect was keeping her. The victim dialed 911 and had an open line with the Joint Communications Center (Cedar Rapids 911 dispatch center). Dispatchers could hear the victim asking to leave and the suspect was screaming at her. The suspect is accused of harassing his girlfriend and threatening to commit a forcible felony by saying that he was going to kill her, then spread her body all over U.S. Interstate 380.On February 17 at 12:14 a.m. Cedar Rapids police officers were dispatched to [redacted] for an open 911 line to the dispatch center with lots of screaming. Dispatchers and officers were able to use GPS to locate the area where the call was coming from and, after checking the neighborhood, determined the incident was occurring at 718 2nd Avenue SW. An intoxicated male, later identified as Robert Noye, answered the door. There was 37-year old female and 12-year old female inside the house who were both upset and crying. The suspect allegedly was calling the victim names while officers were present.According to the victim, Noye was verbally assaulting her all night and she set up a bed in the basement to get away from him. According to the victim, Noye came downstairs and told her to get upstairs and watch the movie “Roots” to understand how racist she was while he continued to verbally assault her. He then made threats to kill her. The victim and her daughter went into a room upstairs where the suspect did not allow them to leave. The victim was able to call 911 and leave the line open.The suspect was arrested and transported to the Linn County Jail.The claim that a man was arrested for allegedly forcing a woman to watch Roots on February 17 2020 was genuine, not “fake news,” not “satire,” and not fabricated to capitalize on Black History Month or for any other reason; the suspect’s girlfriend is the alleged victim. The suspect was arrested and charged with first-degree harassment and false imprisonment.

A: "A man was arrested for allegedly forcing a woman to watch the nine-hour miniseries Roots to ""better understand her racism."
****
Q: The story sidebar estimates that a full course of treatment can cost $3000 or more. It could have added that this treatment is unlikely to be covered by many insurance companies. This was the biggest hole in an otherwise reasonably solid story. The article claims that there is “growing evidence” that neurofeedback can help treat people with ADHD. However, the story never describes any of the results of this purported increase in research that supposedly documents these benefits. The closest we come is the description of a study which hasn’t even been published yet. The story also suggests that neurofeedback’s benefits might last longer than those of medication. Again, however, we are never given any sound basis to believe that neurofeedback works at all — let alone better than other treatments. At the same time, the story leans heavily on testimony from a journalist who has written a book about ADHD and claims neurofeedback worked for her and her son. We are told that the primary improvement she saw with her son was that he was “easier to live with.” Although this kind of anecdotal report can be useful to add context to scientific findings, it is certainly no substitute for reporting on the actual clinical outcomes of research. The story failed to discuss any potential harms of neurofeedback treatment. The most prominent of these is that patients could forego other treatment approaches that have better supporting evidence and are more likely to reduce symptoms. There is also some evidence that neurofeedback can cause seizures or make symptoms worse in some individuals with psychological disorders. In addition, the need for frequent treatments may necessitate taking a child out of school. Readers should come away from this story with a generally accurate feel for where the research on this treatment stands. The story told readers early on that neurofeedback is “scientifically uNPRoved” for the treatment of ADHD. It backs up this contention later in this story by noting that almost all research on this treatment hasn’t involved a placebo control group. And the only study to include such a group apparently hasn’t released its results yet and seems to have involved a very small number of patients. In addition, the story quotes an expert who emphasizes that other forms of treatment (e.g. medication and behavior therapy) have better evidence to support their effectiveness for ADHD. We did think the story focused a bit too much on a single patient anecdote (a deficiency discussed later under the “Benefits” criterion) — an emphasis which makes the treatment sound very promising with little justification. The story could have struck a better balance by toning this section down a bit. No disease-mongering in this story. In addition to extensive comments from the journalist book author who discusses her experience with neurofeedback, the story quotes a Duke University researcher who is an expert on ADHD and offers some counterbalancing perspective. The story quotes a researcher who says that two other approaches — medication and behavior therapy — have a more extensive research base supporting their use for ADHD compared with neurofeedback. It’s clear from the story that this type of treatment is available to the general public. We like that the story cautioned readers to look out for unqualified therapists and gave tips for finding reputable clinicians. The story could have been more specific about how many trained professionals there are and how easy it is to find them outside of large population centers. The story does not oversell the novelty of neurofeedback for the treatment of ADHD. This story does not appear to be based on a news release.

A: Train The Brain: Using Neurofeedback To Treat ADHD
****
Q: "Some Republicans have presented the embattled Clinton Foundation as serving one purpose: ""lining the pockets of Bill and Hillary Clinton,"" as GOP Chair Reince Priebus put it. Responding to such criticisms, Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen said the Clintons ""take no personal benefit"" from the foundation. She also pointed out the legitimate charitable work the foundation carries out, such as its programs addressing AIDS in Africa and storm recovery in Haiti. ""The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it,"" Rosen said on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show Aug. 24. That’s a pretty wide gulf between the assertion that the foundation is just a front for the Clintons to make oodles of money and claims that they don’t get any personal benefit. It made us wonder: What exactly do the Clintons get out of the foundation? Bill Clinton is currently a member of the foundation’s board of directors, while Chelsea Clinton is vice chair. Hillary Clinton was a board member between leaving the State Department in 2013 through the launch of her presidential campaign in 2015. In the most recent year for which tax forms are available, 2014, the foundation reported that Chelsea Clinton worked 35 hours per week for the foundation and other related organizations, Bill Clinton worked 25 hours per work, and Hillary Clinton worked 20 hours per week. The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit. Other Clinton Foundation leaders take home six-figure salaries, according to tax documents. The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead. (A quick aside: There’s some confusion over how much the Clinton Foundation spends on charitable programming primarily because the word ""foundation"" is in the name. Typically, a private foundation’s primary activity is grantmaking, giving money to charities who actually do the work. But the Clinton Foundation operates as a public charity in that they run many of their programs themselves. The Clintons also have a traditional private foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation.) So the Clintons don’t receive compensation from the foundation. However, you can make a case that they have received some indirect personal benefits. This is not to say that any of these benefits are unethical or improper. Experts on nonprofit ethics told us these are pretty standard, and they haven’t seen anything reported about the Clinton Foundation that proves corruption. Still, it’s worth reviewing the limited types of benefits that the Clintons do get. Public relations The most obvious, outward-facing benefit for the Clintons is notoriety and media attention. The organization got off the ground in 2001, the year Bill Clinton left the White House. During the periods when he or Hillary were not in or running for office, the foundation kept the family in the public eye — and more often for good reasons, rather than scandalous ones (at least up until the past year or so, when Clinton launched her 2016 campaign and the foundation faced more intense scrutiny). Throughout its existence, the Clinton Foundation has received attention for its work to make AIDS medication more accessible in Africa, efforts to combat climate change, establishing a business mentoring program, writing school food guidelines, and more. Every fall, Bill Clinton and his family receive a spate of press as the stars of the annual Clinton Global Initiative, a networking conference for wealthy philanthropic donors. Chelsea Clinton has embraced her role as a public face of the organization. ""It does continue to draw attention to the work they do as family and individuals throughout the world,"" said Ann Skeet, director of leadership ethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. ""At a minimum, it is good public relations."" When the Internal Revenue Service evaluates charities applying for tax-exempt status, which the foundation has, it wants to ensure that the organization is set up to provide a public benefit rather than serve private financial desires, Skeet said. There’s nothing improper about the Clintons taking advantage of their public image in this role, as long as it goes toward that public benefit. Another big benefit: The Clintons’ role as high-dollar fundraisers for the foundation also enabled them to maintain relationships with wealthy and powerful individuals, including many who are also involved in the Democratic Party. There are some crossover big money donors, such as Fred Eychaner, Haim Saban and Daniel Abraham. (Republicans have been involved in the foundation, too; Mitt Romney spoke at the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative amid his run for the White House.) The Clintons have also received some indirect monetary benefits from their charitable work, though none of this money came from the foundation’s coffers. Bill Clinton wrote a book in 2007 called Giving, for which he received an advance of about $5 million, according to the New York Times. The book was about charitable work and so is, in part, based on his work with the Clinton Foundation. Similarly, he has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars delivering numerous speeches where he talks about his Clinton Foundation work. For example, Samsung Electronics paid Bill Clinton $450,000 to deliver the keynote address at the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show, during which he talked about how technology has affected his work in the developing world through the Clinton Foundation. Samsung has also donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation. Experts also pointed out that the Clintons have donated to their own charity, and those donations would be tax-deductible. Bill and Hillary Clinton have donated millions to their private philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation, which has in turn given between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton herself has donated between $25,000 and $50,000. And foundation tax documents stipulate that the Clintons, ""due to extraordinary security and other requirements,"" often need to travel first class or via charter plane. A spokesperson said that in some cases, when the Clintons travel on foundation business, the foundation pays for their travel service directly. At least one campaign ad has been made lampooning Hillary Clinton’s travel on private jets. Chicken or the egg? This discussion raises a chicken-or-the-egg question: Do these benefits the Clintons receive really come from the foundation, or do they come from their already sizeable political capital? Before the Clintons started their foundation, they were famous for being the country’s first family. Absent the foundation, it’s quite possible they could command equally sizeable speaking fees and book advances. They would have access to the same members of the global elite. They would have the ability and finances to donate to charitable causes. Buildings would bear their names. Hillary Clinton would still receive hefty donations supporting her presidential campaign. In all likelihood, very little would change in the Clintons’ private lives if the foundation were to close, said Tony Proscio, a researcher at Duke University’s Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society and a consultant to foundations and large nonprofit organizations. ""It’s fair to wonder how much of a ‘benefit’ these things would be to Bill and Hillary Clinton, who are already at home in high society, more famous than almost anyone, and probably welcome to associate themselves with whatever good deeds they please,"" Proscio said. ""Are those ‘benefits’ as valuable to the Clintons as they would be to someone else? It’s debatable."" On the flip side, he said the foundation likely would not be as successful nor as widely known if it didn’t have the Clintons’ name attached. He noted however, ""There’s a glamour attached not only to the foundation but to the Clintons' participation in the foundation that seems a little self-serving."" The reason people start charities in their name and donate significant amounts of money often boils down to a desire to feel like they’re contributing to a cause they care about or to increase their standing in the community, Skeet said. These are, however abstract, a form of personal benefit. ""All donors to all organizations give for a reason you can tie back to personal benefit,"" she said. Our ruling Rosen said, ""The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it."" Rosen’s claim is correct on its face. The Clintons do not take any sort of paycheck, bonus or fees from the Clinton Foundation. It is possible the foundation has boosted the Clintons’ public image since Bill Clinton left office, and this has helped them command hefty speaker fees and book advances, and it’s also given them extra opportunities to mingle with the global elite. But they may have gotten these benefits even without the Clinton Foundation. Their celebrity primarily comes from their track record in politics."

A:
The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it.
****