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'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Newly installed CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert tangled, politely, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on his Sept. 21 show regarding the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz, who’s running for the Republican presidential nomination, whether he could agree with Reagan’s support of ""amnesty"" for undocumented immigrants and the late president’s willingness to raise some taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said ""of course not"" before pivoting to Reagan’s most conservative accomplishments, one being that he ""signed the largest tax cut in history"" and spurred economic growth. ""When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year,"" Cruz said. ""There’s only one other four-year period where that’s true. That’s true from 2008 to 2012."" His point was that Reagan rescued the U.S. economy from the ravages it suffered under his Democratic predecessor, President Jimmy Carter, and that the only other equivalent economic distress occurred under Carter’s fellow Democrat, Barack Obama. Colbert responded, ""But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s ‘largest tax cut’ and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So it’s a matter of compromising."" We wondered if Cruz was correct about the periods of low GDP growth. (In a separate fact-check, we explore Colbert’s rejoinder.) Excepting the unusual post-World War II period of 1945 through 1949 -- when the nation was demobilizing from an all-encompassing war -- Cruz has put his finger correctly on the two general periods in which the annual average growth of gross domestic product over four-year periods has sunk below 1 percent. They are the late 1970s era of ""stagflation"" (that is, stagnant growth combined with rapid inflation) and the aftermath of the Great Recession. The full annual data can be found here. But there were actually three distinct four-year periods during and after the Great Recession that fit Cruz’s criteria, rather than one -- that is, the four-year periods starting with 2006, 2007 and 2008. (With every four-year period beginning after 2009, average annual GDP growth has exceeded 1 percent.) Here’s the rundown of the four post-World War II periods that fit Cruz’s criteria: First year Second year Third year Fourth year Average annual GDP growth 1979 1980 1981 1982 0.2 percent 2006 2007 2008 2009 0.3 percent 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.4 percent 2008 2009 2010 2011 0.4 percent So Cruz overlooked two additional four-year periods. Also, the implication of his comment -- that Democrats bear the primary responsibility for these periods of poor economic growth -- is not so clear. For starters, as we’ve discussed previously, economists say it’s hard to determine how much credit or blame a president deserves for successes or shortcomings in the economy at large on their watch. Factors outside their control, from energy-price shocks to technological changes to pure luck, can have a significant impact on the nation’s economic record. In addition, Cruz’s groupings suggest some contradictory standard-setting. For the 1979-1982 period, Carter was in office for the first two years and Reagan was in office for the third and fourth years. But in the next two periods -- 2006-2009 and  2007-2010 -- George W. Bush, a Republican, was president for at least half of the time. In fact, Bush was in charge for the first three years in 2006-2009, and the first two years in 2007-2010. If Carter, Democrat, is to take blame for the slow growth in the first period, then logically Bush, a Republican, should shoulder the same blame in the next two four-year periods. By the same token, if Reagan, a Republican, escapes blame in the first example, then so too should Obama in the second and third four-year periods. And the 2005-2008 period -- which occurred entirely on Bush’s watch -- barely escapes inclusion on this list, with an average annual growth rate of 1.13 percent. (During the 2008-2011 period, Obama was president for the final three of those years.) Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, said he doesn’t blame either Reagan or Obama for the economic shortcomings early in their tenures that fall under Cruz’s statistical claim. Still, he sees a logical inconsistency in Cruz’s comparison as stated on Colbert’s show. ""It seems doubtful whether poor economic performance early in any president's term can be attributed to the impact of his administration's policies,"" Burtless said. ""If you take office when economic output is plunging, it does not seem legitimate to attribute the economic plunge to the person who just took office."" He added a footnote: Unlike Obama, who unquestionably inherited a recession already under way, the economy actually grew through the first couple of months of Reagan’s first term. GDP grew in the third and fourth quarters of 1980, right before he was elected, and continued to grow during the first quarter of 1981 after he was in office, before a ""double-dip"" recession hit. Cruz spokesman Phil Novack told PolitiFact that our analysis misses the point. ""The focus on who exactly held office in each of those individual time periods is not as important as the contrast between the two periods in terms of how quickly the economy was growing before and after those identified time periods, which is the point Cruz was making,"" Novack said. ""His point was obviously referring to policy results, and we know the results of the policies that followed those slow-growth years of below 1 percent growth that Sen. Cruz identified. Reagan's policies brought us a boom, and Obama's policies have been a bust."" For what it’s worth, we also compared Carter and Reagan on their economic records and found them more similar than one might expect. During Carter’s four years in office, the growth rate averaged 3.23 percent a year. If you take the first four years of Reagan’s presidency, it averaged 3.34 percent. Essentially, each president had two good years and two bad years, which more or less averaged out. Our ruling Cruz said that ""when (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There’s only one other four-year period where that’s true. That’s true from 2008 to 2012."" Cruz missed two other four-year periods that fit the criteria. In addition, his implication -- that Democrats are largely to blame for those conditions -- doesn’t stand up to logical consistency, particularly when he excluded the period beginning in 2006 (which included three years solely under Bush) and 2007 (which included two years solely under Bush). This goes on top of general uncertainty about how much blame to assign presidents for poor economic conditions." Claim: When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There’s only one other four-year period where that’s true. That’s true from 2008 to 2012.
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "No discussion of costs – a recurring and significant oversight. The claims of ""100% accuracy"" and that ""The investigators found that after just one laser treatment, misfiring ceased in 84 percent of the treated veins, and 90 percent remained inactive three months after treatment"" aren’t put into any meaningful context about what difference this made in patient outcomes. Of course, what can you possibly say about outcomes after just three months? Which is exactly the point of raising this issue at all. No discussion of harms. No discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from a study of just 27 people. No explanation of whether destroying misfiring cells with ""100% accuracy"" actually makes a difference in people’s lives and outcomes. No overt disease mongering. However, to say that ""about 2.2 million Americans currently live with an irregular heartbeat condition, known as atrial fibrillation"" in the same breath as describing a study of just 27 people may imply that this very small study has immediate ramifications for all 2.2 million. And it does not. Barely satisfactory. There’s actually no interview – only a rehash of what was published in a journal, restated from a news release. No independent source cited. Again, the comparison of the ""new approach"" with existing approaches is superficial and unhelpful. And there was no comparison of performance or outcomes data. Terribly incomplete on this point. It is never made clear whether the device and approach are still experimental or already in clinical use. The word ""new"" was used five times in the short story. Yet the real novelty of this approach is only scantily and insufficiently described – especially if the implication is that this has relevance for 2.2 million Americans. The story admits it’s based on an American Heart Association news release. There’s no sign of any independent reporting or vetting." Claim: Laser Used to Blast Away Cells Causing Irregular Heartbeat
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "It is perhaps the most polarizing word in the health care debate: rationing. Countless conservative opponents of the Democrat-backed health care reform plans have used the word. Their argument goes like this: You get government more involved in running health care, you set a goal of reducing costs, and it will inevitably mean rationing of medical services. It's not a long road from there to images of Grandma being denied a life-saving operation as a cost-saving measure. Everyone from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Sen. Chuck Grassley has warned that people have reason to worry about rationing, while Democratic proponents of the plan have dismissed the claims as uninformed fearmongering. The term rationing has become so ubiquitous in the health care debate, we could've chosen to fact-check statements from any number of politicians as a way to talk about this issue. In a separate item, we looked at a claim about rationing from House Republican Leader John Boehner. In this item, we opted for one from Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, if only because he was so definitive about a subject with a lot of gray. ""Let me just say, A, there's no rationing in any of these bills, so we don't have to worry about that,"" Dean said on ABC's  This Week with George Stephanopoulos  on Aug. 9. Before we examine his specific claim, let's look at the criticisms that have led to charges of rationing. The critics have often focused on two areas of the health plan to back up their accusations. The first is a proposal to expand comparative effectiveness research. That's a bureaucratic way of saying the government would do studies to find out which medical treatments and medications work better than others, and which are most cost-effective. The idea is that this would help doctors and patients make better informed decisions about the most effective treatment strategies. It's also expected to save money over time. Some opponents, however, claim the government would use findings from this research to ration care. We looked into this issue in detail and concluded that claim is    . Other opponents of the plan have pointed to the Obama administration's proposal for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC). The board would make annual recommendations for changing federal payments for various services covered by Medicare, as well as recommendations on ways to reform the Medicare delivery system. Michael Cannon, a health policy expert with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argues that price controls recommended by IMAC's unelected board amount to implicit rationing. Judith A. Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a group that helps seniors get care under the federal program, doesn't agree. Stein is no fan of IMAC, but she said its goal is not to ""ration"" care but to seek out ways to improve the efficiency of Medicare services, not necessarily cut them. We note that while IMAC has been recommended by the Obama administration, it was not included in any of the House bills so far. It has been discussed as an option by the powerful Senate Finance Committee. Still, we think it's a little premature to suggest this is part of the health care reform plan. And we think claims that IMAC might lead to wholesale rationing are alarmist. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office looked at the IMAC proposal and concluded it would save the government $2 billion from 2016–2019. That doesn't sound to us like the CBO expects any kind of dramatic cuts in service. In fact, we think much of the rhetoric from opponents about how the Democrats' health plan would lead to wholesale rationing has been wildly distorted, fanning the flames of public fear that the health care plan would have the government setting dollar limits on how much could be spent in a year to care for a patient, or deciding that some groups of people — older or disabled people, for example — should not get care because it's too expensive for the common good. And so it's understandable that Dean would want to knock down these wild claims. But we think Dean goes too far when he says the bills have ""no rationing,"" because it ignores a hard reality of health care — there is rationing now and there would be rationing in the Democrats' plan too. ""This whole notion of rationing as it applies to a public option, I think, is really ridiculous,"" Stein said. ""It is what insurance is. Right now, Congress and any health care plan 'rations.' No health insurance I know pays for 'whatever it costs.'"" ""Everyone hates the word rationing,"" said   Katherine Baicker,   a health economics professor at Harvard University. ""From an economics perspective, there's no way around rationing. Some care is being rationed now. Everyone isn't getting everything."" And you can bet people who can't get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition feel like there's already rationing. Ditto for those who can't afford health insurance. Proponents of the health reform plan — which seeks to provide basic coverage to everyone, regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition — argue that it would clearly reduce that form of rationing. You could spend an unlimited amount on health care that would have some chance of helping people, Baicker said. But we have a limited amount of public resources. And so decisions have to be made about how to prioritize to allocate those resources. The idea, she said, is to provide adequate, basic health care in a public plan. Above that threshold, she said, people with more money could buy extra care. John Holahan, the director of the Urban Institute Health Policy Research Center, said he has not seen anything in any of the plans that will result in explicit rationing, but ""if you define rationing as 'people can't get everything they want,' it's true. But it's also true today."" Interestingly, he said that Medicare is much less likely to deny a health service than a private insurer. ""That's the argument you hear people making (that the reform bills would lead to government rationing),"" Holahan said. ""But I think they have it backwards."" Even Obama acknowledged the reality of health care rationing in a town hall on health care on Aug. 16: ""When we talk about reform, you hear some opponents of reform saying that somehow we are trying to ration care, or restrict the doctors that you can see, or you name it,"" Obama said. ""Well, that's what's going on right now. It's just that the decisions are being made by the insurance companies. ""Now, in fairness, we probably could not construct a system in which you could see any doctor anywhere in the world any time, regardless of expense. That would be a hard system to set up. So if you live in Maine, you know, we're going to fly you into California, put you up. I mean, you can see — and I'm not trying to make light of it — you can just see the difficulty. ""So any system we design, there are going to have to be some choices that have to be made in terms of where you go to see your doctor, what's going on, et cetera. That's being done currently in the private marketplace. All we're trying to do is to make sure that those decisions that are being made in the private marketplace aren't discriminating against people because they're already sick; that they are making sure that people get a good deal from the health care dollars that they are spending."" In other words, rationing is just a fact of life in a world with limited resources. Or as Cato's Cannon puts it: ""Asking if there will be rationing under the Obama plan is like asking if there will be gravity. It is ubiquitous and unavoidable."" We realize some may read our ruling and conclude that we believe the Obama plan will mean more drastic rationing. But we think it's more accurate to say the bill seeks a more rational way to ration. Whether it can succeed is a topic for legitimate debate. The Democrats' health care plan calls for a health care exchange that will be a vigorous marketplace of companies offering different plans that will compete for customers by offering more or less coverage. But each of those choices about coverage — a lower or higher cap on out-of-pocket expenses, perhaps, or more or less generous coverage for doctor visits — are rationing. And the same goes for three-fourths of Americans who would probably keep their current employer-sponsored health insurance. Those plans too have limits and caps — and rationing. We rule Dean's statement ." Claim: There's no rationing in any of these bills.
[EX A]:
0