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: "Mitt Romney came to coal country on Aug. 14, standing before a crowd of miners in eastern Ohio and pledging to fight for their jobs. You could be forgiven if you thought this was much ado about 3,150 jobs -- the number employed directly by coal operations in Ohio, at least before two mines announced layoffs recently. But Romney’s greater point was about how coal fires so many power plants in Ohio and the region, and how, he says, environmental regulation from President Barack Obama’s administration threatens jobs at those plants, too. This could drive up the cost of electricity for every Ohioan, Romney said. This debate -- over the cost of electricity, the shift among power plants to natural gas, the environmental and health risks, the role the government should or shouldn’t play -- has been building for years. And after the event, the Obama campaign had a response, saying that Romney’s position on coal has changed substantially since he was governor of Massachusetts. ""Immediately after becoming governor, Romney condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people,"" said an Obama campaign news release. The claim was similar to one the Obama team made in a radio ad, and Obama reelection aides backed it with specific quotes Romney made in February, 2003, when Romney was the freshly elected governor of Massachusetts. The quotes: The Obama campaign also highlighted a Romney quote that had no lethal references but was just as strong. It came from a state of Massachusetts news releasein which Romney said:  ""If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health."" Romney made each of these statements during a Feb. 6, 2003, showdown over the future of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station. In 2001, Massachusetts passed new rules to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, to be phased in over several years. The mercury standard would not be finalized until 2004. Romney supported the rules, as he made clear repeatedly. Massachusetts singled out its most egregious polluters as the ""Filthy Five"" plants, including Salem Harbor. Public health and environmental scientists at Harvard studied the emissions from two of the plants in 2000 and concluded that Salem Harbor was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms -- all per year. As occurs with similar studies that health authorities cite, local residents and others who wanted to keep the Salem Harbor plant open (for jobs and tax revenue) disputed those figures, saying they resulted from unproven modeling. It turned out that the Harvard scientists had revised their figures in 2002, putting premature deaths from Salem Harbor’s pollution at 30 per year and reducing the number of emergency room visits to 400 and the asthma attacks at 2,000, according to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. But the scientists stood by the broader conclusion -- that emissions from dirty power plants can be deadly. The Harvard methodology has now been widely replicated and is respected by health scientists, according to several environmental authorities we spoke with. Romney appeared to accept their findings, too. In the above-mentioned news release, the commonwealth of Massachusetts quoted Romney in the third person on the danger factor:  ""Romney said that the Salem Harbor plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. He also pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming."" This was in a news release issued by the governor’s aides, not some radical outside instigator. It was issued under the name of Romney, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Romney’s development chief, Douglas Foy. According to the Boston Globe, Romney hired Foy from the  Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF, a leading environmental advocacy group in Massachusetts. The spat with Salem Harbor turned into a testy exchange that February day after Salem Harbor’s then-owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, sought an extension until 2006 to comply with Massachusetts’ emissions rules -- and plant supporters showed up to to demand that the governor back off. Romney was adamant that the company comply by 2004. His statements that day show how he felt: ""That plant kills people."" And to those including city officials who argued that this would cost jobs: ""I will not create jobs that kill people."" Based on some of the quotes, it might appear that Romney was speaking only about that single plant (which a new owner, Dominion, is phasing out, after which a subsequent third owner will build a natural gas plant there). That’s what we thought when we began looking into this. It is also what the Romney campaign told us in email. So was it accurate for the Obama campaign to imply that Romney’s words characterized his broader attitude toward coal emissions when he was governor? We kept looking, because people in the environmental community told us it was a valid claim. And the news release under Romney’s name suggested it as well. Romney spoke of plants, not just a single one, when he pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming. Still, to give him the benefit of doubt, what if he really just meant the Salem Harbor plant? Wasn’t that plant particularly egregious when compared with coal-fired plants under attack by federal regulators today? No, say environmentalists who include authorities from the CLF. Their claims are supported by U.S. EPA emissions data we verified independently. ""When he said that ‘this plant kills people,’ he was talking about a plant that produced pollution comparable to the emissions of plants in the Midwest,"" said Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the conservation foundation. Jonathan Peress, an environmental and regulatory attorney who works for the CLF and was recently chairman of the American Bar Association’s air quality committee, added in a separate interview with PolitiFact Ohio that Romney promoted Massachusetts air standards that were almost identical to those the U.S. EPA wants to enforce -- and that Romney now criticizes. ""The levels of emissions that he was talking about were levels that were virtually identical to what the EPA has proposed,"" Kaplan agreed. ""He was steadfastly standing behind emissions reductions that are the same as those currently attacked."" To see if this was accurate -- that the emissions Romney decried were similar to or even weaker than those under current attack now by the EPA (whose rules Romney now attacks) -- we examined the emissions cuts that Massachusetts wanted and data on the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions at Salem Harbor and in the Midwest. The U.S. EPA keeps the information in its extensive Clean Air Markets database. Nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone and smog. Sulfur dioxide is tied to particulate matter and is considered particularly dangerous to health, said Jonathan Walke, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. The level of both these substances was multiple times lower at Salem Harbor, even when Romney was trying to force the plant to reduce emissions, than at Eastlake in Northeast Ohio and several other Ohio plants we checked. Our comparisons included multiple years, including Salem Harbor in 2003 with Ohio plants in 2011. To compensate for differences in electricity output, number of boilers and hours of operation at different power plants, we checked the data for emissions per megawatt-hour. The pattern held. ""It’s all the same pollution, albeit in higher quantities in Ohio,"" Walke said. You might ask why we looked at Eastlake. It’s because FirstEnergy Corp. plans to shut down two of that plant’s boilers rather than spend heavily on scrubbers to comply with EPA rules. This is one of several coal-burning plants at the heart of the current jobs-versus-pollution debate, although Romney did not mention it specifically. It’s important to note that the rules on nitrogen and sulfur are not what is prompting the FirstEnergy shutdowns. New EPA rules on mercury and toxic metals are the cause of planned closures in Eastlake. The tougher limits won’t take effect until 2014. The EPA aims to cut mercury emissions by 79 percent. But as the Massachusetts governor, Romney supported mercury reductions in his state, too. In 2004, he signed off on a rule aiming to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent by 2012. With Romney’s name on the letterhead, Massachusetts in May, 2004, issued a lengthy set of justifications for the mercury rule. Among them:  ""First, [new research] confirms and extends our understanding of mercury's harmful effects on learning, attention and other critical cognitive skills in children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to mercury levels may show signs of attention deficit disorder, impaired visual-spatial skills and poor coordination."" Romney was ""a champion"" of those mercury regulations, said Shanna Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. ""He was one of the reasons we got them through."" Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said,  ""That plant kills people."" But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced. And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal. If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, it’s fairly safe to assume that ""one would also support such things nationally,"" said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at  Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health. The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions -- the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio. The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say Romney was right or wrong at one time. But with additional information from emissions data, interviews and the public record of his governorship,  the Obama campaign claim about Romney’s coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day. On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates ."
Example Output: "Barack Obama Says that as Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney ""condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people."

Example Input: The Associated Press has learned that the attorneys general in Illinois and the District of Columbia are examining how Juul’s blockbuster vaping device became so popular with underage teens. The company’s rapid rise to the top of the multi-billion dollar U.S. e-cigarette market has been accompanied by accusations from parents, politicians and public health advocates that Juul fueled a vaping craze among high schoolers. In addition to the ongoing inquiries in Illinois and the district, which had not been publicly disclosed before, four other state attorneys general are probing or suing Juul. Juul’s top executives have disputed allegations that they’ve marketed their products to teens, declaring that they’ve taken unprecedented steps to combat underage use of its e-cigarettes. The company has shut down its Facebook and Instagram pages and pulled several of its flavored products out of retail stores. Juul also backs federal legislation to raise the minimum age to purchase all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to 21 nationwide. Juul spokesman Ted Kwong declined to answer specific questions about the investigations in an emailed statement but reiterated past company steps to prevent youth use. Juul announced Thursday that 50 retail chains have pledged to adopt the company’s age-verification system, which requires sellers to scan a customer’s ID before selling Juul products. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement Friday the Trump administration “will continue using every regulatory and enforcement power we have to stop the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use.” A senior Illinois law enforcement official described to AP a wide-ranging inquiry being conducted by the office of Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul that is centered on whether Juul violated state consumer fraud laws and other statutes by designing and marketing its products to appeal to underage teens. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity. Marrisa Geller, a spokeswoman for District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, confirmed in an emailed statement an investigation of Juul is underway. She said Racine is concerned about “the dramatic increase in the use of vaping products by district youth” as well as the policies and practices employed by e-cigarette manufacturers to prevent minors from using their products. The attorneys general in Colorado, Connecticut and Massachusetts have announced investigations of Juul related to concerns over underage use of its products. North Carolina’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against Juul in May, asking a court to limit the company’s sales and marketing in the state. All six attorneys general are Democrats. The Food and Drug Administration said last October it seized thousands of documents from Juul’s San Francisco headquarters relating to the company’s marketing. The agency has been investigating whether the company targeted youth with the flavors, design and ingredients of its products. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating Juul’s early marketing campaign and use of social media to promote its products. The FTC declined to comment. Juul has repeatedly stated that it understands the concerns about youth vaping and has taken “the most aggressive actions” of any company in the industry to combat the problem. It has spent millions of dollars on newspaper, radio and online advertisements pledging to keep its products out of the hands of young people. The company also has denied it ever marketed to anyone underage. Kwong said Juul’s earliest marketing campaign, in 2015, was aimed at adults between 25 and 34. Based on the sales and revenue, he said, “there is no evidence that it drove use, youth or otherwise.” Kwong said the company’s paid social media “influencer” program was as a small, short-lived program that ended in 2018. Electronic cigarettes, which have been available in the U.S. since about 2007 and have grown into a more than $6 billion-a-year industry, are battery-powered devices that typically heat a flavored nicotine solution into an inhalable aerosol. Juul, which launched in 2015, now controls roughly three-quarters of the U.S. retail market for e-cigarettes. Last year, one in five U.S. high school students reported vaping in the previous month, according to government survey figures. Most experts agree the aerosol is less harmful than cigarette smoke since it doesn’t contain most of the cancer-causing byproducts of burning tobacco. But there is virtually no research on the long-term effects of the vaping chemicals, some of which are toxic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that 215 teens and adults in 25 states including Illinois have contracted severe respiratory illnesses after vaping. However, the agency said a clear-cut common cause of the illnesses hasn’t been identified and they are being called “potential cases” that are still under investigation. The CDC said in many of the cases patients had acknowledged they’d recently vaped a substance containing THC, the high-inducing ingredient in marijuana. The agency did not say how many of the patients were teens. Kevin Burns, Juul’s chief executive officer, told “CBS This Morning” on Wednesday the illnesses are “worrisome” for the industry and for Juul “if we contributed to it.” He said the company is in close contact with the CDC to get as much information as it can “so if there’s any issue that was ... associated with us, that we can get to the root cause and understand that.” In Illinois, the state’s Department of Public Health has called e-cigarette use among teens an “epidemic” and said there is an alarming lack of understanding about the risk for nicotine addiction. Other areas being investigated by Raoul’s office include: how Juul verifies the ages of people who make online purchases from the company’s website; the amount of nicotine in the flavored solution and how safe those levels are; and whether Juul has improperly advertised its e-cigarette as a smoking-cessation tool. Kwong said the Juul system is designed to help adult smokers switch from combustible cigarettes and is not intended to be used as a cessation product. Neither Juul nor any other e-cigarette has yet been approved by the FDA to help people who smoke traditional paper-and-tobacco cigarettes quit. The Illinois probe began in the spring. Raoul’s office is not coordinating its investigation with other attorneys general, the official said. Geller, the spokeswoman for Racine, declined to discuss the scope of the district’s inquiry. However, a senior official in Racine’s office wrote to a Juul representative in early February and asked for a trove of information about how district residents purchase the company’s products. Among the data sought by Benjamin Wiseman, director of consumer protection, was a list of authorized retail stores and third-party online retailers that failed to comply with Juul’s rules for preventing minors from buying and using its products. Wiseman also asked that the company “describe in detail the nature of the retailer’s failure to comply” and what action Juul took in response. Racine’s office, Wiseman wrote, learned from news reports and conversations with community members and other government officials that use of Juul’s products by young teenagers in the district has increased dramatically in recent years. “Remarkably, one district high school principal estimates that half of the juniors and seniors at her school are using e-cigarettes, many of which we believe are Juul’s products,” Wiseman told Patrick Lynch, a former attorney general of Rhode Island who runs a lobbying and consulting firm that represents Juul. Lynch’s firm arranged for a meeting in the attorney general’s office last November that included himself, Juul chief administrative officer Ashley Gould, Wiseman and Assistant DC Attorney General Brian Caldwell, according to emails obtained through an open records request. Lynch is not registered as a lobbyist in the District of Columbia. The agenda for the meeting isn’t described in the records, although one email from Lynch said they discussed Juul’s efforts “to dramatically diminish youth access to their product.”
Example Output: Juul Labs facing scrutiny from federal and state officials.

Example Input: There’s no mention of the cost of these procedures or whether they are covered by insurance. The average cost of gastric bypass surgery is $23,000, the average cost of lap band is $14,500, and the average cost of sleeve gastrectomy surgery $14,900, according to the web site ObesityCoverage. The story states: “Before surgery, only 3 percent of the teens had no cardiac risk factors at all, but three years later, just over half of them (52 percent) had no risk factors. Just 5 percent had all four cardiac risk factors before their surgeries, but none had all of them three years later. In fact, the majority of the participants — 83 percent — had only one or no risk factors three years after their surgeries. The proportion of participants with two or three risk factors also dropped substantially.” This is a useful start, but the story needed to remind readers: Changes in risk factors predicated on lab values are surrogate markers, so they may not actually lead to improved “heart health” as the story states. The story states that the weight-reduction procedures “carry the same risks as any surgical procedure, such as infections, blood clots and bleeding” as well as nutritional and vitamin deficiencies. It also states that gastric banding “has low effectiveness and a risk of the band slipping down the stomach.” Note: The most risky complications (problems arising from general anesthesia) were not mentioned. The story describes how the study was conducted and provides important caveats, stating: “The study’s biggest limitation is its very selective population. Most of the participants were female, most were white, and most received the gastric bypass. Children of color have the greatest risk of obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, but it’s not clear if they would see the same improvement with these procedures.” It also mentions that the study included “only teens with the greatest obesity who were also unsuccessful trying other weight loss methods. Further, it points out the need for longer-term data of 10 or 15 years. The story does not mention one inherent weakness of this study: The lack of a comparison group that did not receive surgery. [Editor’s note: We updated the final sentence in this criterion to strike the phrase “observational studies” and replace it with “this study.”] The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It states that an estimated 4 to 7 percent of teens have severe obesity. The story includes two sources who were not part of the study. The story does a good job here, quoting Geetha Raghuveer, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri who, it reports, was not involved in the study. Raghuveer is quoted saying surgery “would be considered for the highly obese and those not responding to any behavioral modifications, physical activity or calorie restriction.” Further, the story says, Raghuveer endorses public health efforts that “aim for better obesity prevention, including parent education and interventions when children are toddlers and preschoolers.” “The big question is, how do we prevent obese kids from getting to this point where they would need an invasive surgical procedure?” Raghuveer says in the story. The story mentions that 1,600 teens undergo stomach reduction surgeries each year, which suggests that they are widely available. It also mentions the need to seek counseling and “detailed information from well-established bariatric surgery centers that are specifically dedicated to treating adolescents.” However, one big key to availability is insurance coverage–and this was not mentioned. The story mentions that this study includes more patients than some previous studies that looked at the impact of surgery on teens with severe obesity, and it quotes the study’s author saying it “serves to reinforce the benefits of bariatric surgery as a safe and effective treatment strategy that should be considered sooner rather than later.” Also, the the study of cardiac risk factors and how they are affected is novel, as well, and that’s clear in the story. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Example Output:
Bariatric Surgery Helps Teens With Severe Obesity Reduce Heart Disease Risk