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]: Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin. The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of  the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned. The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Several experts in the field were quoted in this story. In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.) It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.) The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema. The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
[EX A]: A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics

[EX Q]: "During the first Democratic presidential debate in October 2015, Hillary Clinton proclaimed, ""We’ve got to be committed to getting every child to live up to his or her God-given potential."" Cynthia Meyer, who took up the post of deputy press secretary for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in early 2015, fired back with a tweet, ""Would help if they had the chance to be born."" About a month later, in the next Democratic debate Nov. 14, 2015, the episode was repeated. Clinton echoed her earlier comment, again declaring, ""Every single one of our children deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential."" This time, Meyer responded by tweeting, ""More black babies are aborted in NYC than born,"" followed by the hashtag #blacklivesmatter. NYC meaning the city of New York. The pair of exchanges elicited a strong sense of deja vu, but Meyer’s second tweet raised a more specific question about abortion rates among black women in the Big Apple: Are there more abortions by black women in NYC than births? To our inquiry, over email Meyer said her responses were an effort to highlight the value of human life and call attention to NYC’s ""startling"" numbers, which come from a 2013 report on pregnancy outcomes compiled by the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Bureau of Vital Statistics. The numbers have been widely reported by conservative media outlets, including a National Review article that Meyer emailed to us. ""To be clear, that tweet came from my personal Twitter account and I was speaking as a private citizen,"" Meyer said in an email. ""Happy to defend the stats, though."" Abortions by black women in NYC outpacing births? Figuring out the answer to this question proved rather simple. The first place we went was that 2013 report, the most recent data available, which provides exhaustive breakdowns of birth statistics in New York City. The agency lists pregnancy outcomes by race and ethnicity, as well as by borough, type of birth (live birth, C-section, premature) and health of the mother. According to the report, in 2013 black women accounted for 29,007 terminated pregnancies, representing almost 42 percent of all abortions in the city. That same year, black women in the city gave birth to 24,108 babies. With abortions surpassing live births by nearly 5,000, African American women in the city clearly terminated pregnancies more often than they carried babies to term. Black women terminated pregnancies at a rate of 67.3 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 49, a rate far higher than any other racial or ethnic group. We checked: the statistics were similar the previous year, when African American women in the city had 24,758 births and underwent 31,328 abortions. The numbers for black women in NYC starkly contrasted with women in other racial and ethnic categories. In 2013, births far surpassed abortions for white, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander women. Hispanic women accounted for the second-most abortions in the city with 21,555, but they also had 35,581 live births. Asian women had both the fewest abortions and fewest births, while white women accounted for the most births overall and second-fewest abortions. There was less discrepancy between the number of births and terminated pregnancies for black women statewide. In 2013, black women in New York state gave birth to 36,130 babies and underwent 34,960 abortions, according to the state’s health department. During the previous year, the numbers were almost dead even, with black women accounting for 36,905 births and 36,633 abortions across the state. The numbers are far different for the four biggest cities in Texas. The Texas Department of State Health Services reports births by both county and city, but abortions are only reported by county. We examined the numbers in 2013 for Bexar, Dallas, Harris and Travis Counties, which contain the cities of San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Austin, respectively. In all four counties, black women had more live births than abortions. The same was  for white women in those counties. For Harris County, which includes Houston, the largest city in Texas and fourth-largest city nationwide, black women had 12,569 live births and 5,515 abortions, while white women accounted for 16,247 births and 2,661 abortions. If you’d like to peruse the numbers for all four counties, we input the data into a Google spreadsheet for easier side-by-side comparison. It’s important to note that abortion access across the state of Texas stands in stark contrast to NYC. Texas currently has 19 operating abortion clinics, but that number would drop to 10 if the U.S. Supreme Court allows the state's contested 2013 law to fully take effect. In contrast, New York state has 80 abortion clinics. Attitudes toward abortion also differ greatly between the two states. Nationally in 2009, black women had abortions far more often than white and Hispanic women, according to data compiled in December 2013 by the National Center for Health Statistics. For some perspective, an online search turned up a 2008 Guttmacher Policy Review article by Susan A. Cohen, a vice president for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that promotes reproductive health and abortion rights. Cohen, saying the national abortion rate for black women is almost five times the rate for white women, suggested this is greatly explained by higher incidences of unintended pregnancy among African American residents. Higher rates, Cohen wrote, ""reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time. Moreover, these realities must be seen in a larger context in which significant racial and ethnic disparities persist for a wide range of health outcomes, from diabetes to heart disease to breast and cervical cancer to sexually transmitted infections (STI), including HIV."" In examining the socioeconomic factors behind this phenomena, Cohen disputed the idea that black women are recruited into having more abortions, a sentiment that has been shared by anti-abortion activists and conservative politicians. These issues were also extensively explored last September by Zoe Dutton in a piece for The Atlantic called ""Abortion’s Racial Gap."" GOP leaders have used these statistics to argue against abortion, positing that it disproportionately affects black communities. In August, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson articulated this stance in relation to Planned Parenthood, claiming during an appearance on Fox News that the organization has contributed to abortion being ""the number one cause of death for black people."" The leading causes of death for black Americans are actually heart disease, cancer and stroke, according to the CDC, but Carson’s rhetoric speaks to the GOP’s broader stance against abortion. The debate over abortion has taken on more fervor in recent years as many states have introduced increased abortion restrictions. Texas has led in this area, in 2013 enacting a law requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the standards of surgical centers and employ doctors with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. In November 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of those two provisions as undue burdens on women seeking abortions. Our ruling: A Hillary Clinton declaration that every child should be allowed to live up to his potential prompted a tweet from a spokeswoman for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that ""More black babies are aborted in NYC than born."" The tweet from Deputy Press Secretary Cynthia Meyer echoes what has become a talking point among anti-abortion activists, that abortion disproportionately affects the nation’s African American population. Nationally, African American women had a higher rate of abortion than whites, Hispanics or Asians, according to 2013 figures. Even so, black women gave birth more than they terminated pregnancies that year. The same was not  for New York City, where more abortions were recorded for black woman than live births in both 2012 and 2013, the most recent available data. -- The statement is accurate and there's nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. CLARIFICATION, 4:20 p.m., Dec. 1, 2015: We amended this fact check to clarify that the described 2013 abortion rate for black women related to women aged 15 to 49. This change did not affect our rating."
[EX A]: More black babies are aborted in NYC than born.

[EX Q]: In a feat of genetic engineering, about half the chestnuts collected at this college experiment station feature a gene that provides resistance to blight that virtually wiped out the American chestnut tree generations ago. Researchers at New York state’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry are seeking federal clearance to distribute thousands of modified trees as part of a restoration effort — a closely-watched move that could expand the frontier for genetically engineered plants beyond farms and into forests. The precedent-setting case adds urgency to a question scientists have already been grappling with: Should genetic engineering be used in the wild to help save or restore trees? Opponents warn of starting “a massive and irreversible experiment” in a highly complex ecosystem. Proponents see a technology already ubiquitous in the supermarket that could help save forests besieged by invasive pests. “We have this technology, it’s a very powerful technology, and we can use that now to save a species,” said Professor William Powell, a molecular plant biologist who directs the American Chestnut Research and Restoration Project at the college. The researchers want the U.S. Department of Agriculture to assess an American chestnut tree with a gene from wheat that helps it tolerate cryphonectria parasitica, a fungus unwittingly imported to the United States over 100 years ago. The blight decimated a towering tree species once dominant in forests from Maine to Georgia. Nuts from up to 4 billion trees fattened hogs, and its sturdy wood was used to build cabins. Yet by the time Nat King Cole crooned about “chestnuts roasting on an open fire” after World War II, trees were doomed by the blight. Surviving trees today are typically shrubs sprouting from old roots, yet to be infected. Long-running efforts to breed American chestnut trees with the blight tolerance of Chinese chestnut trees are more complicated than once appreciated. That’s because the Chinese tree’s tolerance comes from a suite of genes, instead of one or two. Powell and his research partner Charles Maynard began working on a complementary track decades ago at the request of the New York chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation. The added wheat gene enables trees to produce an enzyme that breaks down harmful acid released by the fungus. Right now, the trees are tightly regulated. Modified trees grow behind the fence of the college’s experiment station near trees without the added gene. Researchers breed the two types of trees for genetic diversity. But flowering branch tips are covered with bags that keep pollen from blowing away. Chestnuts grow and are harvested in the same bags. About half the chestnuts will inherit the gene, the researchers say. The researchers want the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to evaluate the risks of the modified tree and to lift the current regulations. Researchers say they recently sent in their filing, though it needs to be reviewed for completeness before the agency begins its formal assessment. “What we have to make clear is that it’s not going to be any different than the trees produced through conventional means,” Powell said. The USDA commonly authorizes genetically engineered crops. The vast majority of commercial corn and soybean acreage in the United States is used to grow crops engineered to be tolerant to herbicides or insects. There are even some genetically engineered plantation trees, such as papayas resistant to ringspot virus. But engineered trees are not intentionally planted in the forests for conservation. That could change as genetic manipulation becomes more common and trees are increasingly threatened by climate change and invasive pests. “If the chestnut is approved ... I think it’s accurate to say that it does help pave the way for other biotech trees,” said Jason Delborne, an associate professor of science, policy and society at North Carolina State University. Delborne served on a National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine committee that this year released a report that said biotechnology has a potential to help protect forests but recommended more study and investment. Some scientists are concerned about the long-term effects of a re-introducing a tree into the woods that can live for more than 200 years. How will the new trees interact with the species that replaced the long-gone chestnuts? What if the trees die off again in 50 years? Forest eco-systems are incredibly complex and the current regulatory framework is not up to the task of evaluating the environmental and societal risks, said biotechnology and sustainable agriculture expert Doug Gurian-Sherman. “I think we have to step back and ask whether our ability to manipulate things is getting ahead of our ability to understand their impacts,” said Gurian-Sherman, a former senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Rachel Smolker, a co-director of the advocacy group Biofuelwatch and co-author of a report critical of the tree’s release, is concerned that the chestnut tree — with its cozy public image — could be a “Trojan horse” for other trees engineered for commercial use instead of conservation. Many scientists see biotech as a promising tool left on the shelf, partly due to opposition they say is grounded more in emotion than science. Meanwhile, trees are dying from scourges such as the emerald ash borer and the spotted lantern fly, and some scientists say biotech could help where other efforts have failed. “Compared to what’s happening in the world with pests and climate change, I think the risks of making a mistake due to tweaking a gene wrong are so small compared to the risks of doing nothing,” said Steven Strauss, a forest biotechnologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Strauss is prominent in efforts to overturn biotech tree bans on certified commercial forest land. If the application clears the USDA, the tree still needs to be considered by the Food and Drug Administration and it may need to be reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Powell believes the review could take two to four years. A green light from the government would clear the way for distribution of the genetically engineered seedlings, pollen, or scions for grafting to volunteers around the chestnut’s traditional range. In rural upstate New York, Allen Nichols is waiting. Nichols, president of the New York chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation, has about 100 chestnut trees on a rise by his house. Thanks to his diligent care, some lived long enough to produce chestnuts this year. Other trees are dying while others sprout anew — a steady cycle of life, blight and renewal in a rural orchard. The 69-year-old -retiree looks forward to the day he can graft the genetically engineered tree onto his stock, letting the pollen drift in the wind and bringing back a healthy tree his parents talked fondly about. “If we can do it, we should do it,” Nichols said as he surveyed his trees. “We owe it to the forest to try to correct some of the damage that we’ve done.” ___ Follow Michael Hill on Twitter: @MichaelTHill
[EX A]:
High-tech chestnuts: US to consider genetically altered tree.