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.

Example Input: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Surgeon General Jerome Adams made the announcement, with Azar calling marijuana “a dangerous drug.” Officials said President Donald Trump has donated $100,000 — one-quarter of his annual government salary — toward a digital campaign to raise awareness of the risks. Trump has forgone his official salary since taking office. The warning comes as legal marijuana has grown into a $10-billion industry in the U.S. with nearly two-thirds of states legalizing it, mainly for medical uses. Possessing small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The list includes California, Colorado, Michigan and Maine. Federal law still treats it as a controlled substance akin to opioids. Adams said science shows that marijuana is harmful to the developing brains of teenagers and to the human fetus. The drug has also gotten stronger, with a three-fold increase in the concentration of the active ingredient THC in cultivated plants over the last 20 years. “This ain’t your mother’s marijuana,” Adams said. The American Medical Association said it strongly supports the government’s effort, adding that it for some time it has been recommending against marijuana use by teens, pregnant women and women who are breastfeeding. The surgeon general said his advisory is a direct result of scientific research that runs counter to changing social mores. “Marijuana use is a risk to the developing brain,” Adams said. “Over time there has been a change in attitudes about marijuana creating a false sense of security.” While the White House has made the opioid epidemic a top policy and political priority, marijuana previously had not gotten such high-level attention. Federal officials say they fear the trend toward legalization may make it more enticing for teenagers to try marijuana. It’s a commonly used drug among youths, they said, along with alcohol and e-cigarettes. No states allow recreational marijuana use by teens. States with medical marijuana programs, Illinois among them, generally allow use by minors with consent from a legal guardian and certification from a doctor. Adams said that for teens it carries a risk of affecting brain development, which continues in the 20s. Frequent marijuana use by teenagers is associated with changes in parts of the brain that are involved with attention, memory, decision-making and motivation. Among pregnant women, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, with about 7% reporting they had used it within the past month in a 2017 study. Some women use it to help with morning sickness. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics advise women not to use marijuana during pregnancy, and to discontinue the drug if they find out they are pregnant. HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir said pregnant women taking marijuana to relieve morning sickness should stop. “If you have morning sickness, talk to your physician,” said Giroir. “There are FDA-approved drugs to help with morning sickness. Taking marijuana for morning sickness has never been shown to be safe and effective.” The government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse is paying for several studies on marijuana use in pregnancy, including one involving women who have chosen to continue using the drug to treat morning sickness despite warnings. While some studies have suggested that marijuana may be harmful to the developing brain, the evidence isn’t conclusive, explained NIDA Director Nora Volkow, who said she strongly supports the surgeon general’s warning. “We cannot close our eyes and say this is not happening. It’s happening,” said Volkow. It would be a missed opportunity not to continue the research to find conclusive evidence on how the drug affects the fetus, she said. “My view is that the way that you change things is by providing evidence,” she added. ___ Associated Press Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this article.
Example Output: ‘This ain’t your mother’s marijuana,’ surgeon general says.

Example Input: The University of Kansas will have what it says is the smallest four-year medical education site in the country when eight students begin taking classes on Monday on a satellite campus in Salina, Kansas. The move is in response to a shortage of rural doctors in the United States. “By training physicians in a nonmetropolitan area, we are showing young medical students that life can be good, and practice can be stimulating, outside of the big city,” said Dr. William Cathcart-Rake, the physician who directs the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Salina. Students will get some course work via tele-video and podcasts from the school’s other campuses, but they will also train through visits to doctors’ offices in small communities and at the hospital in Salina, school officials said. “It’s a bold and innovative move,” said Dr. Roland Goertz, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. He said students at rural clinics will be exposed to a potential medical career they wouldn’t see in urban hospital settings. Cathcart-Rake said six of the eight students being taught at Salina, as part of their scholarships, have committed to practicing in a rural area. Seven of the eight students are from rural areas to begin with, he said. “They see the value of living in wide open spaces and going back to where their friends are,” Cathcart-Rake said. Attending medical school in a place such as Salina reduces chances they will change their minds, which could happen if they went to a big-city school, he said. Salina, with 46,000 residents, is about 175 miles west of the Kansas City metropolitan region where the university’s main medical school is located. Small-town America has become increasingly under-served by doctors. About 21 percent of U.S. residents live in rural regions but only about 10 percent of physicians practice there, according to data cited by the family physicians group. In Kansas, 12 counties don’t have a full-time doctor at all, said Barbara Atkinson, executive dean of the University of Kansas School of Medicine. Several factors are often cited for a shortage of rural doctors. Rural doctors tend to be paid less, partly because they are more likely to treat patients on Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburses at rates below standard insurance. General practitioners make up the largest share of rural doctors, but until recent years fewer medical students were going into general medicine, putting a strain on rural care. Older doctors who practice in small towns and retire are sometimes not replaced because younger doctors may prefer the greater cultural amenities urban regions tend to offer. Recent changes in federal healthcare laws are intended to make rural practice more acceptable to doctors. Doctors who practice in certain underserved areas will get bonuses beyond the 10 percent boost in Medicare reimbursements they were already receiving, Goertz said. He said another reason why there are fewer rural doctors is that the large majority of medical students come from urban areas, where medical schools are usually located, making them less like to consider rural medicine. “You tend to gravitate to where you grew up,” Goertz said. Cathcart-Rake is optimistic that the Salina medical school will be a success and that in future years admissions may grow from eight to 12 students.
Example Output: Rural doctor shortage prompts opening of medical school.

Example Input: There is no direct cost to bystander CPR, so this category is not applicable. The story does a good job of giving exact numbers of survivors who did and didn’t receive CPR in the study. It provides exact survival times for ambulance arrivals at 5, 10, and 13 minutes. These statistics are provided both in terms of percentages and ratios. The intervention studied here involves a last-ditch emergency effort to revive a person who is dying. There are some potential harms if the resuscitated person survives, and the story didn’t mention those, but given the measured approach of this story and the nature of the research, we feel this one is N/A. In this story, important limitations of study findings are explained to some degree, enough to be satisfactory. An author of the study is cited explaining that the findings do not definitely establish that CPR is actually the direct cause of the higher survival rates reported. The reason for that, unstated, is that this study reports the correlation between cases in which bystander CPR was administered and patient survival rates. It wasn’t an experiment that could prove one caused the other–that could have been made clearer. Granted, at the end of the story we learn “the study is observational and doesn’t prove bystander CPR increases survival odds, the authors note in Circulation. Researchers also lacked data on how quickly bystanders intervened after the start of cardiac arrest, which could influence outcomes, the authors note.” But since some readers may not know what “observational” means, this could have been spelled out more. There is no disease mongering in the story. The story quotes two independent experts whose specific credentials are clearly presented. These sources are cited on the general mechanism of CPR and the importance of starting CPR early. Ideally, they’d also speak to the research itself, providing context on what the general public should know. But given that the story presents the research accurately, and included a discussion of limitations, this is a minor concern here. In a way this story is all about the alternative to bystander CPR: doing nothing until the ambulance arrives. There really isn’t another alternative that could have been discussed. The story doesn’t outright state that pretty much anybody is capable of performing CPR. However, it does imply that CPR is widely available by explaining that the biggest barrier to bystander CPR is that too few people know how to do it. More explanation about how easy it is to learn the procedure (training can be done in just a few minutes) would have improved that aspect of the article. While the story doesn’t make it explicitly clear what’s novel, it does provide enough context for the reader to understand that this study builds upon past research that was more general. That’s done via this quote: “We know from previous research that 1 in 8 people survive after a cardiac arrest if a bystander initiates CPR before the arrival of the emergency medical services,” Rajan said by email. “In contrast, if CPR is not initiated before the arrival of the emergency medical services, only 1 in 30 people survive a cardiac arrest.” The story does not appear to be based solely on a press release. It quotes two experts who were not involved in the study.
Example Output:
Bystander CPR may boost survival odds when ambulance delayed