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 N.C. Department of Health and Human Services said in a news release on Tuesday that it’s working with the Buncombe and Henderson County health departments to track down additional information. Legionella bacteria can become a health concern when they grow and spread in human-made water systems like hot water tanks, air conditioning systems and other sources that are not properly maintained. State Epidemiologist Dr. Zack Moore said it’s not yet known if people attending the fair might have been exposed to Legionella bacteria. Moore says people who attended the fair and are experiencing cough, fever or shortness of breath should call their health care provider right away.
[A]: 2 health departments investigate Legionnaires’ disease.


[Q]: The story provided no cost estimates for vitamin and mineral supplements. The magnitude of wasted expenditures that could be saved is relevant. The story indicated that there was no cancer risk reduction associated with the vitamin supplements studied. A quote in the story from the author of one of the studies indicated that too little or too much of particular vitamins was associated with increased cancer risk. In addition, the table in the story provided information about vitamins being associated with an increased risk of diabetes and a higher, though not significant increase in the incidence in the case of one cancer. The story did not convey any sense of the quality of the studies on which it was reporting. Were they retrospective observational studies (generally weak designs) or prospective randomized trials (the best type of study). A more insightful explanation about why the current group of studies which find no protective effect are more compelling that the previous studies that found a protective effect of vitamins would have also been useful.. This story did not engage in disease mongering. The story included quotes from one of the study authors, as well as a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society and an expert without connection to the study but who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. The story mentions specific lifestyle interventions which have been shown to be associated with reduction in cancer risk. It inaccurately mentioned screening for colon, cervical, and breast cancer as means of reducing their risk. It should have stated that these screening tests are associated with reduced risk of dying of these cancers, not as means of reducing the chance of developing them. It’s clear that vitamins and mineral supplements are in widespread use. The story correctly indicated that the results of the current study are consistent with the results from several recent studies which demonstrated that vitamin supplementation failed to decrease the chance of developing cancer. The sidebar table, which summarized results and included the journal name and month of publication, provided a resource for interested readers to find more information. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
[A]: Vitamins get ‘F’ in cancer prevention


[Q]: "The article states clearly that the procedure costs around $10,000. It would have been useful to add whether this includes the cost of multiple cycles of ovarian stimulation, which are often required. The article states that freezing an egg results in a pregnancy only 2 to 4 percent of the time, compared to 25 to 43 percent for typical in vitro fertilization. The article makes clear the procedure is invasive. It would have been useful to specify whether the invasive technique of extracting the eggs can lead to future difficulties with natural pregnancy, serious disability or death. It would have been useful to add that ovulation induction itself carries some risk and may need to be done multiple times. Since the report is a summary of an expert panel’s statement, it does not face the same obligations to describe medical evidence as a story based on a study. Nonetheless, the article usefully includes data drawn from the expert statement about the chances of getting pregnant with the egg-freezing method compared to typical fertility treatments. The article does not exaggerate the emotional consequences of infertility or childlessness. The article draws data from the report–on the likelihood of pregnancy from freezing eggs compared to fresh eggs and the number of births that have resulted from the procedure. But it would have been useful to add the phrase ""according to the report,"" to improve transparency. Quoting the head of the team that issued the report is necessary but not sufficient. Even in such a short piece, a brief statement from a practioner of the technique is required for balance. The article makes clear that typical IVF using freshly harvested eggs is the main option for women seeking to get pregnant with medical assistance. The article does not state whether egg freezing is available from all, most or just a few fertility treatment centers. It states only that ""many fertility clinics"" make claims about the effectiveness of egg freezing. The article makes no claims that egg freezing is novel–the implication is that ""rainy day"" use of the technique is still fairly rare, but growing and increasingly promoted. It seems that the story may have been triggered by the press release from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. But it does not quote the release, and it adds additional reporting."
[A]:
Egg storage untested as a fertility treatment, experts caution