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: The footage, said to be filmed in January at Planned Parenthood clinics in Falls Church, Charlottesville and Roanoke, Virginia, is the latest in a series of videos made public by Live Action, a California-based group that opposes abortion. Live Action said in a statement that the videos are evidence Planned Parenthood is “willing to aid and abet the sexual trafficking and exploitation of minors and young women.”   Planned Parenthood said the undercover videos are part of a coordinated lobbying effort to advance legislation that would take away funding from the family planning organization. The three videos, one at each clinic, show a man saying he’s involved in sex work and manages teenage girls ask questions about prices and identification requirements for sexually transmitted disease testing, birth control and abortions. In each case he asks if the conversations are confidential. In the videos, Planned Parenthood employees answer questions about health services offered at the clinic and explain requirements associated with different procedures. “It’s very clear to us that these tapes show health professionals doing their job,” said Planned Parenthood spokesman Stuart Schear of the new footage. “What the tapes don’t show is that after these unusual encounters, these health professionals went to their superiors and reported they had unusual encounters with a suspicious individual and Planned Parenthood managers reported their suspicions to local authorities,” Schear said. Planned Parenthood has said previously that the FBI is reviewing evidence and photos related to the encounters. All of the undercover videos were filmed during the same week. The first one, released on Tuesday, focused on a clinic in central New Jersey. The New Jersey clinic employee captured on film was later fired for her behavior. Planned Parenthood said it notified both local and national authorities after the string of unusual visits, which occurred within one week in at least 12 centers in six states, including New Jersey and Virginia. In January, Planned Parenthood said it alerted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that a series of health centers had been approached by visitors whose comments indicated involvement in sex trafficking of minors. Live Action’s founder, Lila Rose, said her group will send the Virginia footage to state law enforcement officials and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli said in a statement released Friday that he plans to review the footage, noting that what he has seen so far “is very disturbing.”   Meanwhile, New Jersey’s Attorney General Paula Dow is aware of the video and has referred the matter to the Division of Criminal Justice for review, spokesman Paul Loriquet said earlier in the week.
Example Output: Anti-abortion group releases more video of Planned Parenthood.

Example Input: Activists in Arkansas accused Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of sending constituents “cease-and-desist” letters. But while it’s true that at least one member of the group received one, it is unclear how many constituents at large have as well. A spokesperson for Cotton’s office, Caroline Rabbitt Tabler, confirmed the existence of the letters, saying that they were issued “under extreme circumstances.” She also said that it was rare to send any constituent such a letter. There has been no confirmed tally of how many times it has happened. The letters began getting attention when the liberal group Ozark Indivisible posted a picture of one on Twitter on 17 January 2018, along with a message taunting the senator: #TraitorTommy @TomCottonAR scared of his constituents calling so he’s sending out cease and desist letters. You’re too [chicken] to lead CIA if you can’t even listen to constituents! #arpx #TraitorTommy @TomCottonAR scared of his constituents calling so he’s sending out cease and desist letters. You’re too 🐔 to lead CIA if you can’t even listen to constituents! #arpx pic.twitter.com/N1HAGCmbW6 — Ozark Indivisible (@OZRKIndivisible) January 18, 2018  The letter stated: This letter is immediate notification that all communication must cease and desist immediately with all offices of US Senator Tom Cotton. All other contact will be deemed harassment and will be reported to the United States Capitol Police. The letters themselves, however, are not recent; the one posted by Ozark Indivisible was dated 17 October 2017. A Fayetteville resident, Stacey Lane, identified herself as the recipient of the letter posted online. Rabbitt Tabler said Cotton’s office did not accuse her of saying anything threatening but did not go into detail on why it sent her the letter. Ozark Indivisible confirmed to us on 19 January 2018 that Lane is a member of their organization. They also disputed reports that Lane threatened anyone or called a staffer a “cunt.” The group added: There have been others who have received the letters, but they do not want to come forward. They are not OI members. According to reports, “an unspecified number of individuals” received letters that month. Rabbitt Tabler said in a statement that they are “only used under extreme circumstances”: Senator Cotton is always happy to hear from Arkansans and encourages everyone to contact his offices to express their thoughts, concerns, and opinions. In order to maintain a safe work environment, if an employee of Senator Cotton receives repeated communications that are harassing and vulgar, or any communication that contains a threat, our policy is to notify the U.S. Capitol Police’s Threat Assessment Section and, in accordance with their guidance, send a cease and desist letter to the individual making the harassing or threatening communication. Another person, who did not identify themselves, told the Arkansas Times that they received a similar letter. They said: I believe if Tom Cotton’s office were to respond as to why they sent this letter, I think they just honestly don’t want to listen to any citizen’s opposing view or hear the numerous grave concerns U.S. citizens have about the serious & ongoing attack on our Democracy and past election cycle in which a foreign, hostile Russian government interfered, they don’t want U.S. citizens to call and speak their mind and truth in a very direct manner and they obviously don’t want to be held accountable for their words and actions while serving all the people in this nation. I may have used unprofessional and unbecoming language at times as the anxiety and stress of what I’m witnessing is at times too great a burden to control and I have vehemently expressed my righteous anger at Senator Cotton’s complicitness with this harmful regime. Cotton, whose current term in office runs through 2020, has come under criticism from his constituents in the past. During February and April 2017 town hall events, he was pelted with questions regarding various issues and hit with chants that included, “Do your job.”
Example Output: "Sen. Tom Cotton's office has sent ""cease-and-desist"" letters to constituents ordering them not to contact him."

Example Input: The story makes it clear that cost of the test is currently speculative (“could cost about $500”) and goes even further to caution that: “Johns Hopkins holds the patent and has not licensed it as yet to a company that would ultimately set the price.” The story makes the two key results of the test quite clear. First, that the 1,005 people tested already had been diagnosed with one of eight common cancers, and the blood test was able to detect cancer in about 70 percent of them. Second, the test was also given to 812 people without cancer and only a false reading for cancer less than 1 percent of the time. Including the additional finding that the test was only able to detect cancer in about 40 percent of the patients with early cancer (ie. stage I) was a thoughtful way of introducing the relevant issue of falsely negative tests. The story does an excellent job of finding an independent source who explains that one of the potential risks of cancer screening tests is either identifying cancers that are not there, or are benign, and can lead to “pointless and potentially dangerous treatments.” The opposite harm is also mentioned; that is, a screening test that erroneously gives a negative result, leading providers to falsely reassure a patient that cancer is not there. Cautious language is used at many points in the story and it does three things quite well. First, it lists the most important limitation of the study: The screening test studied was unable to identify the type of cancer. Second, the implications of both falsely positive and falsely negative tests were explained succinctly and placed in a clinical context that would matter to those undergoing screening. Finally, we were very encouraged by the inclusion of this sentence: “… the researchers will still have to demonstrate that the test improves and extends the lives of cancer patients.” There is no disease mongering in this story. The two independent sources cited provide important context for understanding the strengths, limitations, and clinical context of the screening test. This was a tough call, but ultimately we felt the story would have been stronger had it mentioned the performance of current screening methods for some of the cancer types, such as Cologuard for colon cancer. That said, we were glad the story included some of the pitfalls of screening for prostate and breast cancer, as well as the long struggle to develop more blood tests for cancer. It’s mentioned the authors of the study are “hoping their idea would eventually lead to a $500 test … but they have a long way to go.” Future studies of the screening test are also discussed, so it seems clear this test is not currently available. It’s made clear that “there have been many attempts over the decades to develop blood tests to screen for cancers … but these methods don’t give reliable results.” It’s also pointed out that what makes this screening test unique is that it combines two previously used methods (screening for proteins and for DNA) into one test. This story does not appear to rely upon a news release.
Example Output:
Scientists Edge Closer To A Blood Test To Detect Cancers