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.

Input: Consider Input: "U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is continuing his pointed attacks against Republican opponent Daniel Webster, and Webster's stance on women's issues. Only this time, he's ditching the lines about religious fanaticism and the comparisons to the Taliban. Grayson, a Democrat from Orlando, caught flak for airing an ad that compared Webster's beliefs to those of the Taliban, and for distorting Webster's words in a speech Webster gave to a Christian group. Grayson played clips in a 30-second ad called ""Taliban Dan Webster"" that showed Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. But an unedited clip of the speech showed that Webster was in fact telling husbands to love their wives. The distortion, which earned a False rating from PolitiFact Florida, gave Webster's campaign national attention (including tweets of support from Sarah Palin) and helped him raise more than $100,000 in 48 hours, his campaign said. In response, Grayson released a toned-down version of the ""Taliban Dan"" ad on Oct. 6, 2010, called ""The Facts."" Gone are the terrorists holding machine guns, the people burning American flags and the women wearing burqas. Also gone are references to religious fanaticism, Iran and the Bible. (Gone, too, we found, is the ""Taliban Dan Webster"" ad from Grayson's YouTube website. The video is now marked private.) Here's a transcript of the new ad: Daniel Webster's Washington backers are attacking Alan Grayson on women's issues. The facts on Webster's record:  Fact: Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships. Fact: Webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home. Fact: Webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child. Those are the facts. Don't let Daniel Webster make the laws we will have to live with. In another item, we're analyzing the claim that Webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home. In this fact check, we'll focus on the first ""Fact"" -- that Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships. It's a slightly different take on a claim in the first ad when Grayson claimed that Webster ""wants to make divorce illegal,"" even for abused women. Both claims track back to a piece of legislation Webster introduced as a member of the state House in 1990. That year, Webster authored HB 1585, a bill that ""creates a form of marriage known as 'covenant marriage,' which may be dissolved only on grounds of adultery."" Florida law then and now allows married couples to divorce if a court finds that the marriage is ""irretrievably broken."" It's a common standard throughout the country, often called no-fault divorce. The term can be interpreted broadly and critics say the standard of proof makes divorce too easy. Webster's legislation sought to make getting a divorce more difficult, at least for couples that voluntarily entered the covenant marriage. Here's what he proposed. Men and women would have the option on their application for a marriage license to elect a covenant marriage. Under terms of the covenant marriage agreement, the husband- and wife-to-be would have to have their parents' permission and attend premarital counseling by a member of the clergy or a marriage counselor before proceeding. As part of their marriage license, the husband and wife would then have to sign notarized documents declaring:  ""I, (insert name), do hereby declare my intent to enter in Covenant Marriage. I do so with the full understanding that a Covenant Marriage may not be dissolved except by reason of adultery. I have attended premarital counseling in good faith and understand my responsibilities to the marriage. I promise to seek counsel in times of trouble. I believe that I have chosen my life-mate wisely and have disclosed to him or her all facts that may adversely affect his or her decision to enter in this covenant with me."" Once a couple agreed to a covenant marriage, the only way they could get a divorce is for adultery. That means physical or sexual abuse was not grounds for a divorce. Webster's legislation went nowhere in Florida -- Democrats controlled the state House in 1990, and the bill never came up for a vote -- but it did help launch the movement for covenant marriage nationwide. Three states -- Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona -- adopted a version of Webster's law, though the laws on the books in those states were all less restrictive than what Webster proposed in Florida, said Alan J. Hawkins, a professor of Family Life at Brigham Young University and an expert on covenant marriage. In his first ad, ""Taliban Dan Webster,"" Grayson said that Webster ""wants to make divorce illegal,"" even for abused women. But as our research proves, Webster's bill wouldn't make all divorce illegal. Rather it would make divorce more difficult, but not impossible, for couples who chose to form a covenant marriage. Even couples who chose Webster's form of covenant marriage had a small window out for adultery. It appears the Grayson campaign listened. In his new ad, ""The Facts,"" Grayson says ""Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships."" In 1990, Webster sponsored HB 1585, which would create a new form of marriage called covenant marriage. If women agreed to form a covenant marriage, they would not be allowed to divorce because of physical or sexual abuse. The only out under Webster's legislation was adultery."

Output: Webster sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships.


Input: Consider Input: The American, Walter James Palmer, a Minnesota dentist who paid $50,000 to kill the lion, has left Zimbabwe. He says he did kill the animal but believed the hunt was legal and that the necessary permits had been issued. Local hunter Theo Bronkhorst appeared in a courthouse in Hwange, 800 km (500 miles) west of Harare, and was charged with “failing to supervise, control and take reasonable steps to prevent an unlawful hunt”. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was set free after posting $1,000 bail and depositing his passport with the court. He will return to court on Aug. 5 for trial. Game park owner Honest Ndlovu, who is also accused of assisting Palmer, was not charged on Wednesday and parks officials said he would first testify for the state and be charged later. While Bronkhorst appeared in court in Zimbabwe, Palmer, who is accused of killing Cecil with a bow and arrow, was being pilloried on the Internet, with many people wishing him dead. “This is disgusting. I hope you get thrown in a cage with hungry lions,” Julie Lu wrote on the Facebook page of his dental practice. Palmer said on Tuesday he had hired professional guides who secured hunting permits and deeply regretted taking the lion. He added that he had not been contacted by authorities in Zimbabwe or the United States and would assist in any inquiries. The Zimbabwe police and government have not commented. If found guilty, Bronkhorst could be fined $20,000 and possibly jailed for up to 10 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed its concern about the killing. “We are currently gathering facts about the issue and will assist Zimbabwe officials in whatever manner requested,” said Vanessa Kauffman, a spokeswoman for the government agency. “It is up to all of us - not just the people of Africa - to ensure that healthy, wild populations of animals continue to roam the savanna for generations to come.”  Cecil was fitted with a GPS collar for a research project by scientists from Oxford University and was one of the oldest and most famous lions in Zimbabwe. The British university’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit said it had been tracking Cecil since 2008 and was “deeply saddened” by his death. “Insofar as this happened illegally we consider it deeply reprehensible,” it said in a statement. It was working closely with Zimbabwe’s National Parks authorities to support their “meticulous work” in prosecuting the case. The unit also said Cecil’s death would be likely to trigger a power struggle in the pride, resulting in the death of other male lions as well as Cecil’s offspring. “When a male lion is killed, because of the way their society works, a likely consequence is the overthrow and death of other adult male members of his weakened coalition, and the subsequent infanticide of his cubs,” it said. Palmer’s hunting has attracted scrutiny in the past. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to lying to a U.S. wildlife agent about a black bear he killed in Wisconsin two years before. He was accused of killing it 40 miles outside a permitted zone, hauling the carcass back into the approved area and certifying falsely that it was killed there. He was  sentenced to one year probation and fined $2,938. In the Hwange case, Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force chairman Johnny Rodrigues said Cecil was lured out of the park with bait before being shot. The incident has triggered fierce debate over the commercial ‘trophy’ hunting of African big game. Like many countries, Zimbabwe issues annual permits that allow foreign hunters to kill wildlife such as elephant, buffalo and lion legally, arguing that the funds raised allow the government to fund conservation efforts. “Sustainable trophy hunting is part of well-managed wildlife conservation. It creates incentives for people to look after wildlife,” said Adri Kitshoff, chief executive of the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa. “It’s easy to fall into the trap of emotions and not focus on facts.”  However, Edward Bourke, chairman of the Australia-based Saving The Lion Foundation, said Cecil’s death showed the dangers of legal hunting. “There is enough global pressure to push for change. There is an opportunity to offer alternatives, including international aid for establishing safe haven environments like national parks or eco-tourism zones,” he said. One of the few countries to avoid Cecil hysteria was Zimbabwe, where most people are more preoccupied with putting food on the table and finding work in an economy suffering 80 percent unemployment. To the state-run Herald newspaper, the most remarkable aspect of the case was the lion’s name, which it linked to British imperialist Cecil Rhodes, after whom the former Rhodesia named. “How someone thought it such a good idea to christen a lion after the infamous plunderer and murderer who roamed dangerously across Africa can only be a matter of conjecture,” it said in an editorial.

Output: Zimbabwean charged over killing of Cecil the lion.


Input: Consider Input: "A one month supply of Lipozene can cost up to $90 as reported in this story. This article also pointed out that other companies sell similar supplements for a much lower cost. This story is clear and accurate in its overall message that there appear to be no weight-loss benefits from taking Lipozene. This story uses expert opinion to point out the severe diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress would be adverse effects of taking the very large doses of the glucomannan fiber in Lipozene that might help someone to lose weight. This story also noted that glucomannan is not FDA approved as a weight-loss supplement. This authors of this story should be commended for their thorough research in medical literature and in consultation with independent experts to verify the lack of evidence supporting Lipozene’s weight loss claims. The headline of this story ""Fiber-based Lipozene’s weight-loss claims rest on thin evidence"" sums up the lack of credible evidence on which Lipozene bases its weight-loss claims. This story does a good job at pointing out that Lipozene’s ""clinically proven"" ""fat-reducing power "" does not appear to be based on any data published in the medical literature. Perhaps this claim is based upon a small study reporting that individuals taking a fiber supplement similar to Lipozene on a very low calorie diet lost weight. Mathematically the amount of weight lost would be accounted for by diet alone. This story debunks Lipozene claim that people can lose weight without dieting or exercisisng by citing current medical opinion, and common sense. The story does point out that the Federal Trade Commission has taken legal action against the Obesity Research Institute for making false claims about its other gucomannan containing products. As a footnote, the Obesity Research Institute does not appear to conduct any research despite its ""lofty"" name. This story does not engage in disease mongering but clearly points out that the makers of Lipozene do. The parent company, Obesity Research Institute, capitalizes on the public’s desire for a quick fix weight loss pill. This story took a well balanced approach to presenting both sides of the Lipozene story. Beneficial claims by the manufacturer were balanced with comments by two independent experts who expressed the opposite opinion. The story also tried unsuccessfully to verify claims that could not be otherwise verified with the manufacturer. The only significant omission ofthe story was not including basic information on weight-loss. This story briefly mentions diet and exercise, but could more clearly state these are the proven ways to lose weight. Also, a brief sentence about gastric bypass surgery in cases of severe obesity could have easily been included. There is no shortage of ‘get thin quick products’ being aggressively marketed in the media and widely available in drugstores trhoughout the country. Lipozene is no excpetion, as this story points out at the onset. This story makes it clear that weight-loss supplements including Lipozene are common place. We are confident the story did not rely on a news release."


Output: Fiber-based Lipozene’s weight-loss claims rest on thin evidence