instruction:
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.
question:
In a report released Wednesday, the experts said annual cases of Legionnaires' jumped more than fivefold from 2000 to 2017, and that as many as 70,000 Americans get the disease every year. Legionnaires' is caused by bacteria that can thrive in buildings with large water systems. About 20 outbreaks are reported each year, including recent ones at an Atlanta hotel and a hospital near Chicago. But there is no single set of widely accepted guidelines for preventing infections. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report pushes for requirements like minimum temperature levels for hot-water heaters, and registration and monitoring of cooling towers.
answer:
Experts call for steps to stem increases in Legionnaires'.

question:
The story does a good job of pointing out one advantage of the pill approach compared to delivery via colonoscopythe reduced cost. "There was a significant difference in cost. Though the procedures were done in a Canadian hospital, the FMTs delivered by colonoscopy cost nearly $500 USD more than the capsules, which cost about $300." This was a close call. Early on, it says the pill was 90% effective for treating recurrentClostridium difficile infections. Later on, the story explains that both were equally successful in treating the Clostridium difficile infections. It would take a bit of deduction to figure out that the 90% treatment rate applies to both the pills and colonoscopies. And the study puts this figure close to 96%. But we'll give the benefit of the doubt and rate it satisfactory. The story gets a satisfactory here for including the differences between the two methods of delivery: One source is quoted saying, "colonoscopies and the anesthesia required for the procedure can put a lot of stress on a person's bodyand can be complicated for the people most at risk for C. difficile infections." It could have gone a step further and reminded readers that a colonoscopy is an invasive procedure with the inherent risks of infection and perforation that obviously aren't there when taking a pill. The story did not mention the other adverse events described in the paper such as nausea and vomiting, though. The story comments on the size of the study and quotes a researcher about strengths (a randomized, controlled trial) and limitations (selection bias) of the study. Selection bias, in this case, means many people were excluded from the clinical trial if they had any number of issues (patients with severe or complicated cases were excluded, for example), potentially biasing the results. In a more real-world setting, the effectiveness rate may drop once it's tried on a wider range of people. No disease mongering here. The story does include comments from an independent source unaffiliated with the research. But, it doesn't specify that the source has received research money from a drug company that's developing microbiome drugs. Standard treatment for C. diff is antibiotics. This should have been mentioned. Unfortunately, the story doesn't spell out whether the pill form FMT is now, or soon will be, available to the public. The story does mention that numerous other clinical trials are using FMT as a possible treatment for various diseases but it is unclear whether the pill form is an option for physicians at this point. What's new here is that a pill form for delivery of a fecal transplant is being tested against a colonoscopy. The story established this. It does not appear to rely on a news release.
answer:
Fecal transplant via a pill? Newsweek's coverage points out possible selection bias of study participants

question:
"Even ardent gun rights supporters are willing to talk gun control in the wake of the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. During a Dec. 18 grilling by MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston said gun control should be ""up for discussion"" alongside violent video games and mental health. The Savannah Republican was endorsed by the National Rifle Association in 2012 and received an A+ grade from the group. Changing gun laws may not be the answer, though. ""Connecticut has the fifth toughest gun control laws in the country, including an assault weapons ban that bans 35 different weapons,"" Kingston said. A Kingston spokesman did not reply to our request for more information, so we searched for state-by-state comparisons of gun control laws and reviewed Connecticut's assault weapons statute. The term ""assault weapon"" is controversial. Various state laws use the phrase, although the National Rifle Association argues that gun control advocates created it to ""trick the public into believing that 'assault weapons' were fully-automatic machine guns used by the military,"" its website says. There's no formal definition for what counts as an assault weapon. Laws describing them vary. In general, the term refers to a semi-automatic firearm that resembles a fully automatic one or those used by militaries. Connecticut law generally bans the sale, transfer or possession of assault weapons. State statute defines them in two ways: Connecticut's law lists 37 guns, not 35, so Kingston's not far from the mark. Technically speaking, the statute is written so that firearms outside the list can be prohibited, but this is a minor problem. What about Connecticut's ranking? The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence uses a point system to rank states based on whether their statutes met the group's standards on curbing firearm trafficking; background checks; child safety requirements and other factors. Connecticut's laws were ranked the fifth strongest in the nation in 2011, the group's most recent list. It was bested by California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York. Georgia tied for 22nd. The nutmeg state scored well consistently. We checked the rankings back to 2007 and found it made the top five each time. Still, Connecticut's 58 points lagged well behind first place California, which earned 81 points. The state's assault weapons ban was one reason why. It earned only three out of a possible 10 points because magazines that carry more than 10 rounds remain legal there. Also, the Brady Campaign prefers a different definition for an assault weapon. ""While it's the state with the fifth strongest gun laws, obviously, at 58 points out of 100, there's a lot more the state can do,"" said Brian Malte, a spokesman for the group. We found that groups that push for tougher gun laws consistently give Connecticut high marks. For instance, the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranked Connecticut fourth in its 2012 report, and fifth in 2010. It assigns points to each state based on 29 aspects of gun law, including the sale and transfer of firearms, owner responsibilities, and rules on their handling in public places. The center Georgia ranked 24th in 2012. And Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which boasts membership of more than 700 mayors, including Atlanta's Kasim Reed, issued a 2010 report that compared states based on whether they enacted 10 key types of gun laws. Connecticut had put nine of the 10 types in place. Only New York and New Jersey received a 10 out of 10. Georgia had enacted two. Our conclusion: Kingston is right on this one. Connecticut consistently ranks high in lists of states with stringent gun laws, and literally ranked fifth in recent rankings by the Brady Campaign and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Furthermore, he's pretty close on the number of assault weapons banned in Connecticut law. Kingston earns a ."
answer:
Connecticut has the fifth toughest gun control laws in the country, including an assault weapons ban that bans 35 different weapons.