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: Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin. The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of  the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned. The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Several experts in the field were quoted in this story. In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.) It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.) The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema. The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Example Output: A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics

Example Input: The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. Enforcement of the law had been on hold pending the legal challenge but will begin shortly, said Steve Pitt, general counsel to Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentucky’s lone remaining abortion clinic. The ACLU argued that “display and describe” ultrasound laws violate physicians’ speech rights under the First Amendment. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the Kentucky law, but its sister court in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a similar measure in North Carolina. The Supreme Court had previously upheld “informed consent” laws for women seeking abortions. The court will hear an abortion case in March, over Louisiana’s attempt to require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Doctors’ speech also has been an issue in non-abortion cases. The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients. In Kentucky, doctors must describe the ultrasound in detail while the pregnant woman listens to the fetal heartbeat. Women can avert their eyes and cover their ears to avoid hearing the description or the fetal heartbeat. Doctors failing to comply face fines and can be referred to the state’s medical licensing board. The ACLU called the law unconstitutional and unethical. ACLU lawyer Alexa Kolbi-Molinas said that the Supreme Court “has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship.” Pitt painted a different picture of the law. “It’s a five-minute procedure that takes place before the abortion is performed to give women who might have a lack of understanding of what’s actually in the womb, that this is a real living human being there, they might change their mind,” he said. The high court’s decision not to review the ultrasound case came on Bevin’s final day in office. Bevin, a Republican, is an outspoken abortion opponent. During his term, he signed a series of measures passed by the GOP-led legislature that put limits and conditions on abortion, including the 2017 ultrasound law. Those laws have triggered several legal challenges. Bevin was defeated in last month’s election by Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear, but Republicans remain in control of the state legislature. ___ Associated Press writer Bruce Schreiner contributed to this report from Frankfort, Ky.
Example Output: Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place.

Example Input: "While these studies examined prostate cancer mortality rates and treatment outcomes, monetary costs are an important part of the larger conversation about the value of screening. There are significant financial costs associated with population-wide screenings, along with the follow-up diagnostic procedures and treatments that these studies suggest are of little benefit. The reporter should have referenced costs of screening and treatments at least briefly. There are two studies involved here, each with its own methodology, outcomes and limitations. Under the circumstances the news report describes the findings adequately, using a broad brush. The report states that the U.S. study found no decline in death risk in the screened population, while the European study showed a 20 percent reduced risk of death–yet it also documented considerable overtreatment. The reporter gets points for using the always valuable ""number needed to treat"" measure to describe the European findings: 48 additional men would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The story focuses in part on the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The story is based on results of two high-quality clinical trials, and it describes the methodologies sufficiently. The story does an excellent job of laying out the caveats very early: that the results won’t end the controversy over the value of prostate cancer screening; and that the studies continue and may provide clearer answers in the future. The reporter gets extra points for mentioning too that the two studies aren’t directly comparable. The report does nothing to exaggerate the effects of prostate cancer or its treatments. The reporter includes comments from the lead authors of the two studies, the author of a related editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, and a physician representing the American Cancer Society. The story adequately explains that screening options include the PSA blood test and the digital rectal exam. The story also refers to the options for treatment after a cancer is identified, indicating that ""there’s no agreement on the best treatment approach""–watchful waiting, surgery, hormone therapy or radiation. The wide use of the PSA test is implied throughout the story. No claims are made for the novelty of the screening techniques or the findings of the study. The story does not appear to draw directly from press releases of NIH, the Washington University School of Medicine, or others publicizing the results."
Example Output:
Studies don’t end prostate cancer test controversy