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]: The study to be published on Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroscience differs from many other pot-related research projects that are focused on chronic, heavy users of cannabis. The collaborative effort between Northwestern University’s medical school, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School showed a direct correlation between the number of times users smoked and abnormalities in the brain. “What we’re seeing is changes in people who are 18 to 25 in core brain regions that you never, ever want to fool around with,” said co-senior study author Dr. Hans Beiter, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University. In particular, the study identified changes to the nucleus accumbens and the nucleus amygdala, regions of the brain that are key to regulating emotion and motivation, in marijuana users who smoke between one and seven joints a week. The researchers found changes to the volume, shape and density of those brain regions. But more studies are needed to determine how those changes may have long-term consequences and whether they can be fixed with abstinence, Beiter said. “Our hypothesis from this early work is that these changes may be an early sign of what later becomes amotivation, where people aren’t focused on their goals,” he said. The study, which was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, comes as access to pot is expanding following 2012 votes in Washington state and Colorado to legalize its recreational use. The drug remains illegal under federal law. Medical pot is allowed in 20 U.S. states. Pot legalization advocates make the argument that marijuana is safer than alcohol a central part of their campaigns. Other research has found drinking alcohol alters the brain, Beiter said. But while researchers do not know exactly how the mental rewiring seen in pot users affects their lives, the study shows it physically changes the brain in ways that differ from drinking, he said. This latest study fits with other research showing marijuana use has significant effects on young people because their brains are still developing, and Beiter said he has become convinced that marijuana should only be used by people under 30 if they need it to manage pain from a terminal illness.
[A]: Casual pot use causes brain abnormalities in the young: study.


[Q]: According to the story, brand-name aromatase inhibitors cost between $340 and $420 a month, but the story also points out that lower-costing, generic versions are available in the U.S. It would have been useful had the story also provided cost information for the other preventive drug options, tamoxifen and raloxifene. A particular strength of this story is its presentation of data. Dr. Winer, an independent source included in the story, translates a 65% risk reduction to mean that exemestane may reduce a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer from 3% to 1%. Not only does the story provide absolute risk, but it also presents the number needed to treat. According to the study authors, 26 women would need to take exemestane for five years to prevent a single case of breast cancer. It should be noted, however, that few women in the study completed five years of therapy. Since this is being used as a preventive measure in healthy women, side effects are very important and data should have been provided. The story indicates that “slightly” more women taking exemastane experienced hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia, and joint pain, compared to those taking placebo pills. It would have been helpful to note, for example, that 40% in the exemestane group experienced a hot flash versus 32% in the placebo group. Citing older research, the story indicates that that joint pain, muscle aches, problems having sex, and vaginal dryness may be more evident with a longer duration of use. The story makes it clear that the study was a large-scale, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, which enrolled over 4500 women in North America and Europe. The women included had at least one risk factor for breast cancer. It also notes that given the significant risk reduction associated with exemestane, the study was stopped after 3 years to give women in the control arm the option of taking exemestane to prevent possible breast cancers. More information regarding participants’ characteristics, including age and race would have been helpful. This story did not engage in disease-mongering. In addition to including experts not affiliated with the exemestane study, the story also notes that the it was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Avon Foundation, and Pfizer. In addition, the writer points out that the study lead and a few other authors have received speaking fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies that make cancer drugs. This story compares the benefits and harms of exemestane with tamoxifen; however, a mention of how these compare with raloxifene, would have been useful. The availability of aromatase inhibitors is not in question. It’s clear from the story that aromatase inhibitors are currently used to prevent breast cancer recurrences. It’s also clear that this is the first study evaluating its utility for preventing the first instance of breast cancer in healthy women with a higher risk of developing the disease. The story does not appear to be based on the press release.
[A]: Hormone-blocking drug reduces breast cancer risk


[Q]: "It's not every state that has two candidates running for president, but this year Minnesota has both Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann competing for the Republican nomination. But the state's ""Minnesota nice"" reputation doesn't seem to apply to presidential politics. Bachmann, a member of Congress, has been attacking Pawlenty, a former two-term governor, for not being conservative enough. Pawlenty, meanwhile, has said Bachmann has few legislative accomplishments and wasn't known for getting results. We checked part of Bachmann's attack in separate fact-check. She accused Pawlenty of saying in 2006 that ""The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive."" We looked into the history of Pawlenty's comments and rated her statement . Here, we're looking at Pawlenty's response. He said that while he was ""elected twice in a very blue state, Congresswoman Bachmann was giving speeches and offering failed amendments,"" among other things. Pawlenty also said in an interview on July 10, 2011, that Bachmann's ""record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent."" Here, we wanted to check Pawlenty's statement about Bachmann's record of accomplishment. Is it as thin as he suggests? To check, we turned to the federal legislative database THOMAS, media accounts and other public records. We found Pawlenty was largely correct: Bachmann does not have many legislative victories under her belt. Instead, Bachmann seems to prefer offering legislation that makes a bold statement. This year, she proposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent, stripping President Barack Obama's health care law of funding, overturning new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs and repealing the financial regulatory overhaul that passed just last year. None of those bills has received a vote from the full U.S. House of Representatives. Bachmann has served in Congress since 2006, and hasn't sponsored anything that's become law. Her most successful proposals were a 2008 resolution expressing support for agencies that provide services to foster children and a 2009 resolution to designate September as ""National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month"". (Hydrocephalus is a buildup of fluid inside the skull, leading to brain swelling, which can be fatal.) Both measures were approved by the House but not the Senate. We went looking for other accounts to either confirm or refute Pawlenty's charge. (We contacted Bachmann's campaign for comment and didn't hear back.) We knew from previous reporting that sometimes a legislator's bill is incorporated into other larger legislation with a different sponsor. We wanted to make sure were weren't missing giving Bachmann credit for a case like this. Instead, we found more confirmation that her legislative record is thin. Here's how POLITICO summarized its review of her record: ""Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she's sponsored signed into law, and she's never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann's amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator."" MinnPost.com, a nonpartisan Minnesota-based news website, concluded: ""She has had a few amendments passed, among the most famous of which aimed to prevent groups like ACORN from sitting on a proposed consumer advisory panel on financial protection and making them ineligible for certain federal grants. But most of her legislation, like her health-care reform bill that would make all health care costs tax deductible and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, has been introduced and referred to committee, never to be heard from again."" In February 2010, the St. Cloud Times newspaper of Minnesota asked Bachmann about her legislative achievements. Here's the question and her response:  St. Cloud Times: ""Name three bills or amendments that you have gotten passed that are the most beneficial to the people of the 6th Congressional District."" Bachmann: ""I was involved in a foster care amendment to support and encourage people in foster care. It is a very important issue. Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-La.) and I are working on the Haiti situation. We are trying to put together initiatives so that children can actually go into homes and not stay in institutions their whole life. I was able to pass this resolution honoring people in foster care. I am in the deep minority in Congress and a fairly new freshman, so I don't have substantive bills that I have passed. I would love to. The very first bill I introduced was the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act."" We should note that Bachmann's point about being in the minority has some merit. It's often difficult if not impossible for legislators in the minority to get bills passed. But Republicans did regained the majority this year. Also, she's right that new members of Congress often don't get legislation passed, though Bachmann was in her second term when she made her comments to the St. Cloud Times. But even Bachmann supporters seem to admit that passing legislation isn't really her thing. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told POLITICO that Bachmann has had ""a profound effect on the debate,"" comparing her with Winston Churchill. ""It doesn't mean you always win. In fact, as we know, Churchill lost and lost and was a voice of reason in Great Britain for a long time before people finally realized he was right,"" Gohmert said. Finally, we checked in with two political watchers in Minnesota to see if we were missing anything from Bachmann's record. ""Pawlenty more or less got it correct in terms of saying her legislative record is insubstantial. She has never been known for doing real legislative work or in really moving legislation. She is better at giving speeches,"" said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University who studies Minnesota politics. And though Bachamnn was in the legislative minority for a time in Congress, Schultz said, she never chose to create a legislative record. ""Thus, it did not surprise me that once this year she became part of a majority in the House, she opted to run for president. I do not think she was prepared actually to govern and do real legislative work."" Steve Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College, said that Bachmann ""has defined herself during her political career as a public advocate, not an executive or legislator. Her goal has been to draw bright rhetorical lines and marshal support for her purist conservative positions."" In ruling on Pawlenty's statement, he said that Bachmann's record was one of ""failed amendments"" and ""nonexistent."" There's a little bit of exaggeration there. In addition to failed amendments, she had failed bills, and those measures did, in fact, exist, even if they didn't pass. But his larger point that Bachmann hasn't had many legislative accomplishments is correct."
[A]:
"Michele Bachmann's legislative record is ""offering failed amendments."