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'.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "To show that insurance companies can be callous, President Barack Obama recently cited the case of an Illinois man who Obama said had died because of an insurer's decision. ""More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care,"" the president told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009. ""It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."" The man Obama was referring to was Otto S. Raddatz, who died earlier this year. But Lynn Sweet, a reporter with the  Chicago Sun-Times  , found the president was wrong to blame Raddatz's death on the insurance company. Raddatz, a restaurant owner, was insured by Fortis Insurance Co., according to congressional testimony by his sister, Peggy. In September 2004, at 59, he was diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma and began chemotherapy. As he was preparing for a stem cell transplant for which timing was crucial, he was told that his coverage was being rescinded due to a ""routine"" review that had found that he'd failed to disclose having gallstones and an anyeurism. Explaining that the doctor had never even told him about the discovery, and that no treatment had ever been urged, Peggy Raddatz went to the state attorney general for help. Within weeks, the attorney general's office got the decision reversed, and Raddatz was able to proceed with his transplant. The case drew national attention, including stories in Slate and on National Public Radio, and Peggy Raddatz testified twice to congressional commitees about her brother's story. But the president's version of the story was challenged by a Sept. 13, 2009, blog post by Sweet, who covers the White House for the  Sun-Times  . She noted that the transplant went ahead and Raddatz lived for another three years — an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Peggy Raddatz's testimony backs this up. On June 16, 2009, Raddatz recounted the experience before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Raddatz is still angry with the insurer — in her prepared testimony, she called what the company did to her brother ""unethical"" and ""cruel"" — but she gave no indication that the delay hampered her brother's survival. At one point, the full committee's ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, asked Raddatz whether her brother had received the stem cell transplant he needed. ""He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant,"" she responded. ""It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately three-and-a-half years. He did pass away January 6th of 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute, and so he did pass away on January 6th. But again, (the initial transplant) extended his life nearly three-and-a-half years. And at his age, each day meant everything to him."" The White House acknowledges that the facts got garbled, but insists that the larger lessons from the story are unchanged. ""The story President Obama referenced in his speech underscores what so many Americans have learned the hard way: Insurance companies look for ways to rescind their coverage when you need it most,"" White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said. ""A media account of Mr. Raddatz’s story that the president relied on in his speech confused some of the details, but the underlying point remains the same. President Obama wants to end the practice that allows insurance companies to pull insurance for individuals like Mr. Raddatz when they need it most."" In her piece, Sweet noted that a fellow  Sun-Times  reporter, Cheryl V. Jackson, talked to Raddatz after the speech, and she had no complaint with Obama's account of her brother's death. ""The point is that my brother lost his insurance coverage when he was dying,"" the article quoted Raddatz as saying. Still, the president said that Otto Raddatz's death was caused by a delay in his surgery caused by the insurer's decision to rescind his policy. But as Peggy Raddatz testified, government intervention enabled her brother to have the procedure, and he lived, despite his cancer, for another three and a half years. When Raddatz eventually died earlier this year, his sister said that his death came while waiting for a second procedure that did not happen because the transplant donor unexpectedly fell ill. Critics can still blame the insurance company for insensitivity — and it's true that the company only paid for Raddatz's treatment after the attorney general's office acted — but the evidence shows that it's inaccurate to say a delay in care caused his death." Claim: "Insurers delayed an Illinois man's treatment, ""and he died because of it."

Output: 0


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The story provides the cost of the machine but does not mention how this would influence the treatment costs for the patient. We are not told if this method of cancer treatment would be covered by health insurance, or how the cost would compare to current radiation treatments. The story does not provide any quantification of benefit. The story is a promotional vehicle for a new, potentially cost-prohibitive machine manufactured by TomoTherapy. We are told that proton therapy  will work better for patients than radiation, but no data are given to show that this is the case. The story notes potential harms of radiation, but mentions no harms of proton therapy. Proton therapy is not without side effects; this story inappropriately minimizes potential harm of proton beam. Clearly, future clinical studies will help define better the harms, but the story should have noted potential for harms. Common harms include hair loss, skin rash, fatigue – story says ""patient won’t have undue side effects"" whatever ‘undue side effects’ may mean – the harms are not inconsequential for sure. Here’s what another proton center lists: What are some of the side effects from proton therapy?Side effects will depend on the patient’s age, medical history, diagnosis, disease size and location. Some patients may receive chemotherapy in conjunction with proton therapy; some will receive much lower radiation doses than others and therefore symptoms will vary significantly. Common symptoms include temporary hair loss and skin reactions in the direct path of the radiation. Fatigue is also associated treatment to large areas. The story provides no quantitative evidence that the proton therapy is better than current radiation. Despite company reassurances, we do not know if this form of therapy is as efficacious as current radiation or if it is safe. We are also not told if this therapy is only for a particular type of cancer or if it could be used on tumors anywhere in the body. The story does not engage in disease mongering, but promotes a new technology and potential future option for cancer treatment. The story cites Dr. DeVere White and Dr. Matthew of UC Davis Cancer. Researchers at this center helped finance research and development of the proton therapy machines with TomoTherapy, Inc., so they have an interest in positively promoting their work. The story also cites a senior project manager at TomoTherapy, Inc., who also cannot provide unbiased information about this new device. The story needs balance from cancer researchers (esp. radiation oncologists) and clinicians to provide perspective on this emerging technology as cancer treatment. The story presents proton therapy as a newer, alternative option for shrinking tumors; however, this technology as cancer therapy is still in early development, thought it has received FDA approval for cancer treatment. The story gives us no data to support this newer option as better than existing methods of X-ray radiation treatment for cancer. There have been advances in standard radiation therapy with the goal of minimizing harm to healthy tissue, and the story does not mention that current forms of X-ray radiation can be targeted to a tumor via computer imaging and the use of devices (i.e. balloon, seeds, etc.) Mary, unsure here if we need to mention the latter, but thought it was important as they position this as proton therapy v. harmful radiation. Radiation, at least as much as I know for breast cancer, is now safer. The story mentions that the proton therapy machines are only in five cancer centers in the U.S..  Space and cost are provided as the reason this therapy is not widely available, but cancer centers may be waiting for evidence that this therapy is safe and works as well (or better) than current forms of targeted radiation delivery. The story presents a new technology–proton therapy–as an option for shrinking tumors; however, the story gives us no data to support this newer option as better than existing methods of X-ray radiation treatment for cancer. We can’t be sure if the story relied soley or largely on  a press release, but there is very little new information in the story that is NOT in a news release posted by TomoTherapy, Inc., makers of the proton therapy machine promoted in the news story." Claim: Partnership plans to build cancer treatment machine

Output: 1


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Leaf appeared Thursday at C.M. Russell High School in Great Falls for the first time in more than 20 years, The Great Falls Tribune reported Friday. In a speech titled, “Lying to Myself,” Leaf discussed his football career as a star at Washington State University, Heisman Trophy finalist and second-overall pick in the 1998 NFL draft by the San Diego Chargers. Four years later he was out of professional football and became addicted to prescription pills, which led to burglary and drug charges and a prison sentence, Leaf said. He recalled attending a boxing match in Las Vegas in the time shortly after hanging it up in the NFL and being booed loudly by the crowd as the announcer recognized celebrities in attendance. At an after-fight party, he took a Vicodin, and for the next eight years, kept trying to chase that high, he said. “I was a drug addict long before I ever took a drug,” Leaf said. “I didn’t know any better.” Leaf’s goal in telling his story was to connect with the audience and “try to give back to a community that I took so much from and victimized,” he said. He also spoke about the need for more discussion of mental health issues in Montana. “There is a mental health epidemic in this state,” Leaf said. “We need to come together as a community.” He does not practice a specific religion but spoke of spirituality, community and accountability. Leaf found his calling working as an assistant to a substance abuse counselor in prison, he said. He is now a program ambassador for Transcend Recovery, an addiction treatment center in Los Angeles where he worked after getting sober. As a pro athlete, “I was making $5 million a year and was miserable,” Leaf said. “Now, I was making $15 an hour and felt valued.” ___ Information from: Great Falls Tribune, http://www.greatfallstribune.com Claim: Former NFL player Ryan Leaf gives speech on  substance abuse.


Output: 2