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'.

[Q]: Paragraph: There was no discussion of costs. Were people to begin taking B vitamins in the quantities necessary to show improvement along the lines of what has been seen in some of the studies mentioned, B vitamins could become a lifelong treatment with significant cumulative costs. The slant of the story was to question the wisdom in augmenting vitamin B intake in light of the studies failing to demonstrate benefit. The story itself, however, reported on several pieces of evidence over time rather than reporting on the results of a specific study or studies. Where it did provide numbers on benefits, it did so in a clear and cautious way. For example, it noted “a recent study in which brain atrophy (or shrinkage, which occurs in older people who are losing brain function) slowed by 30% in elderly patients with both high homocysteine levels and mild cognitive impairment who took a B vitamin pill daily for two years. Brain shrinkage occurred at a rate of about 0.75% in the people taking B vitamins in the study, compared with a rate of 1.1% per year in a group that took a placebo.” By including the actual percentages for people in both groups, the story shows the reader that the shrinkage was not dramatic to begin with and that the difference between the two groups could also be described as a 0.26 percentage point difference. The story did include information about possible side effects and harms associated with excessive consumption of B vitamins. The story provided a reasonable description of several studies in which outcomes were not changed with vitamin B supplementation. There was a useful quote by one of the researches indicating that only a minority of studies showed any indication of benefit from increasing vitamin B intake. We wish it had taken a little more care in making clear distinctions between the different populations being studied. In some cases, the studies were focused on anyone of advanced age, while in others they were focused specifically on Alzheimer’s patients, but there was no discussion in the story about whether these differences may also have accounted for the different findings among the studies. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story detailed several studies of the relation between the B vitamins and cognitive impairment; it included quotes from two researchers  (Haan and Miller) in the field who are at different institutions but have several studies that they have worked on and published together. There was no discussion of how the fortification of common foods in the supply chain, such as grains, flour, cereal, energy bars and drinks, has affected the levels of B vitamin. There was also no mention of other specific therapies to stop cognitive decline. The story described the urge to rush out and purchase B vitamins, which is suggestive of their ready availability. The story neglected to mention that many foods are already fortified with B vitamins, which may already cover the recommended intake levels for many readers. This story provided a nice overview of what is known about B vitamins in relation to age- and disease- related cognitive decline. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It is not clear why this information about the long-term research interest of two local scientists is news right now, but it is an interesting piece nonetheless. Claim: Vitamin B and its role in improving memory
[A]: 2


[Q]: Paragraph: "Lies, truth, honesty: Anytime campaign literature shows up peppered with these words, we perk up. So it was when a reader, Randall Horton, passed along a recent mailer from state Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, which opens: ""Honesty matters, especially in politics."" The Truth-O-Meter kicked in at Bohac's reference to Annie's List, a Texas group dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women. His leaflet calls the group ""a liberal special-interest group who supports third-trimester abortion on demand."" Is that so? Some background: Annie's List was founded in 2003, its website says. According to Robert Jones, its political director, the group was modeled on the nationally established EMILY's List, which describes itself as ""dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office."" EMILY is an acronym: Early Money Is Like Yeast. And, as Bohac's mailer says, Annie's List backs Bohac's Democratic challenger, Kendra Yarbrough Camarena. Through Sept. 23, state records show, Camarena had received about $77,000 from Annie's List, accounting for about 26 percent percent of her contributions since March 2009. UPDATE, 10:45 a.m. Oct. 21, 2010: After we published this article, a Bohac campaign consultant, Bryan Eppstein, pointed to information backing up another Bohac claim that Annie's List has contributed more than $100,000 to Camarena's cause. His figure takes into account both the group's direct contributions to Camarena's campaign, which we tallied for our original article, and indirect contributions that to date have been reported only by Annie's List; these include expenditures for pro-Camarena direct mail, campaign staff and software. Also, the reader who forwarded Bohac's mailer gave us permission to include his name in this article. How to regulate late-term abortions has proved to be a simmering national issue. In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing a procedure known medically as ""intact dilation and extraction."" The U.S. Supreme Court later upheld the law, which had been challenged by physicians and abortion-rights activists who said the procedure is often the safest to use late in a pregnancy because it ""minimizes the chances of injury to the uterus,"" according to an April 2007 recap by The New York Times. When does a pregnancy become ""late-term""? Elizabeth Nash — a public policy expert at the Guttmacher Institute, which studies and advocates on issues related to reproductive health — told us that the term ""is more of a political or layperson term"" and that ""people have all sorts of ideas about its definition."" Generally speaking, she said, any point past the 18th week of pregnancy, counting from the last menstrual period, could be considered ""late term."" The third trimester is typically thought to begin at the 28-week mark. Late-term abortions are rare. Nationally, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 1.5 percent of U.S. abortions in 2006 occurred at the 21st week or later. According to the most recent data available from the Texas Department of State Health Services, 13 out of 81,591 Texas abortions (about 0.02 percent) in 2008 occurred in the 25th week or later. When we asked Bohac's campaign officials for evidence that Annie's List supports third-trimester abortion ""on demand,"" it referred us to his political consultant, Keats Norfleet. Norfleet told us that Annie's List only supports ""pro-choice, progressive Democratic women candidates who favor late-term abortions."" Norfleet sent us several news articles describing Annie's List as backing Democratic women candidates who are ""pro-choice,"" though none explicitly mentions third-trimester or late-term abortions. We wondered if Annie's List had clearly stated its position on third-trimester abortions anywhere. The group's website says it wants to elect more women who are ""pro-choice"" and who favor ""reproductive rights,"" without mention of third-trimester abortions. In an e-mail, Jones said Annie's List doesn't advocate specific stands on issues. ""We don't advocate for late-term procedures 'on demand,' "" Jones said. ""We simply provide resources to progressive Democratic women candidates to help them get elected. And one of the many tenets of what we consider to be progressive is to be pro-choice."" Generally, Jones said, the group backs Democratic women who ""support things like funding for sexual assault and domestic violence prevention, fully funded public schools, clear air and water, access to quality health care, and a woman’s right to choose."" As for a candidate's position on third-trimester abortions, Jones said: ""If there was a bill in Texas to ban so-called partial-birth or late-term abortions, we wouldn't kick a woman off our list just because she supported it"" as long as she also supported an exclusion for the health and safety of the woman. Jones told us that the group assumes that a candidate's ""pro-choice"" position means that she's aligned with the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and subsequent case law. That ruling established a constitutional right to an abortion before viability, the time at which a fetus can survive outside a woman's body. According to a report issued this month by the Guttmacher Institute, the court held in Roe that ""a woman’s right to an abortion is not absolute and that states could restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided their policies meet certain requirements,"" including an exception to protect the life of the woman. Since then, other Supreme Court rulings have affirmed states' rights to approve further restrictions. Texas has two laws restricting third-trimester abortions — one enacted in 1987 and the other in 2005. According to an Austin American-Statesman report, the 2005 law — attached as an amendment to a proposal maintaining the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, now the Texas Medical Board — made it so that serious risk ""to a woman's mental and physical health would no longer be a reason for an abortion in the last few months of pregnancy. An abortion could still be performed to prevent her death, but otherwise could not be performed unless she is diagnosed with a significant likelihood of suffering imminent severe, irreversible brain damage or paralysis. In addition, a fetus' abnormalities, other than severe, irreversible brain damage, would no longer be an acceptable factor."" Mindful that Annie's List is supportive of pro-choice Democratic women but doesn't spell out a position on third-trimester abortions, we looked at what ""pro-choice"" means to others who work on abortion-related issues. Nash called that ""a toughie,"" adding that ""sometimes organizations still support a legislator if they vote for a 'partial-birth' abortion ban but are otherwise supportive of abortion rights and work to increase access to family planning and other reproductive health services."" Sara Cleveland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, told us that the group defines ""pro-choice"" as ""the original vision of Roe v. Wade,"" under which ""states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester as long as there are exceptions to the ban for cases of a woman’s life or health endangerment."" But Joe Pojman, executive director of an anti-abortion group, Texas Alliance for Life, said he would define ""pro-choice"" based on the positions taken by groups that use the term to describe themselves. He used NARAL Pro-Choice Texas as an example, saying correctly that it opposed the 2005 third-trimester measure as well as parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions. Pojman said Annie's List backs candidates who support ""abortions rights without limits,"" singling out state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, who voted against the 2005 amendment increasing restrictions on third-trimester abortions as well as the final version of the bill containing the ban. We took a closer look at the vote on that amendment, which passed 118-16. We determined that Reps. Alma Allen of Houston and Yvonne Gonzales Toureilles of Alice, both backed this year by Annie's List, voted for the amendment, while Rep. Veronica Gonzales of McAllen, also supported by the group, voted against the amendment. So how about truth, lies and honesty? It's true that Annie's List backs ""pro-choice"" Democratic women. And Bohac's politically potent statement rests on the assumption that ""pro-choice"" means ""supports third-trimester abortion on demand."" That's a premise that he fails to back up. Annie's List makes no bones about being comfortable with candidates who oppose further restrictions on late-term abortions. Then again, this year it’s backing two House candidates who voted for more limits. Honestly? Bohac's sweeping, unsupported statement is ." Claim: Dwayne Bohac Says the Annie's List political group supports third-trimester abortions on demand.
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "On 5 January 2016, President Obama proposed several measures to curb gun violence while delivering remarks on the topic in the East Room of the White House. As he discussed gun deaths involving children, the President began crying (as seen at the 0:44 mark in the video embedded below):  // <! [CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ""//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&#038;version=v2.3""; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> Some versions of the meme attributed its claims to Dr. Lillian Glass: In her 2013 book “The Body Language of Liars,” behavioral analyst Lillian Glass wrote that psychopaths are really bad at crying: “When psychopaths cry, they will often wipe underneath each eye, one at a time. When people cry genuine tears they cry with both eyes, and so they will tend to wipe both eyes at once.” A brief online search indicated that the quote cited above was lifted directly from a 6 November 2013 Business Insider article titled “7 Signs You’re Working with a Psychopath.” The article predictably described an entirely different context: They are really bad at crying. “When [Susan Smith] gave a press conference and cried about her missing children, her fake tears were actually what raised suspicions that she was the killer,” says Glass. When psychopaths cry, Glass says they will often wipe underneath each eye, one at a time. “When people cry genuine tears they cry with both eyes, and so they will tend to wipe both eyes at once.” In their original context, Dr. Glass’ observations clearly pertained to video footage (not a still image). Dr. Glass’ web site includes a blog wherein her observations consistently describe analysis of subjects in context and motion (utilizing photographs to illustrate the body language she described in a broader context throughout). Nowhere in her writings did we locate an example of her making such a definitive diagnosis based upon a single still image, nor of her throwing around severe diagnostic language such as “psychopath.” We contacted Dr. Glass regarding the meme and the use of language from her 2013 book The Body Language of Liars. Dr. Glass told us she was aware of the quote’s newfound popularity and was deeply dismayed by the lengths to which her words and work had been misconstrued due to the meme (and related articles). Dr. Glass strongly repudiated the assertions of the meme, noting that the quote originally appeared in her 2013 book and was used for the Business Insider piece in a very different context. Moreover, she stated that she would never engage in body language analysis so flippantly, nor did she consider the subject matter of the meme appropriate for such observations. Mostly, Dr. Glass was dismayed at the virality of a grossly misconstrued, unrelated, out-of-context quote from her book in a meme that misrepresented her work. We asked psychologist Dr. Emily Perrine-Gifford about the claims; she explained why the armchair diagnoses of social media made little sense to mental health clinicians: I don’t think people understand what a psychopath really is. A psychopath is someone who is literally born without a conscience. That means that if Obama were really a psychopath, he would have shown signs and symptoms from childhood. Psychopathy may be understood as the worst form of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Antisocial Personality Disorder can not be diagnosed until adulthood, but with psychopathy, since this is potentially the worst form of Antisocial Personality Disorder and is thought to have genetic origins as well as psychosocial origins, certain symptoms may be seen before adulthood. These symptoms, most notably, for psychopaths, are fire setting, problems wetting the bed past an age appropriate time period, and a blatant disregard for the safety of self or others. Psychopaths are notoriously difficult to diagnose as they can be charming and manipulative. However, I have particular expertise in this area as I have worked in forensic psychiatric hospitals and super maximum security prison settings. I am not convinced that President Obama is or ever was a psychopath. He shows little to no signs or symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder and these symptoms would have to present in order to be diagnosed as a psychopath." Claim: According to a body language expert, a photograph of President Obama crying reveals he is a psychopath.
[A]:
0