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'.

[Q]: Paragraph: "Local and state governments are expected to have budget shortfalls as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And, according to the Democrat in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race, the Republican incumbent thinks struggling communities should go bankrupt. That's what Cal Cunningham said about Sen. Thom Tillis. ""Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed,"" Cunningham tweeted April 24, linking to a Politico story. Is that true? There's a lot of context being left out. Yes, Tillis did say he is ""more or less aligned"" with what McConnell, the U.S. Senate majority leader, said about not giving more federal dollars to states that had pre-existing budget problems. McConnell proposed allowing them to file for bankruptcy, which states are not currently permitted to do. But Cunningham exaggerated what we know about Tillis' position. Tillis' comments clearly show he doesn't want the federal government to pay for state debt that wasn't incurred during the coronavirus outbreak. What's less clear is whether he wants those states to go the bankruptcy route. So what did McConnell say about bankruptcy? In a radio interview on April 22, McConnell said states with pre-existing problems might be better off declaring bankruptcy than by expecting additional funding from the federal government. But he didn't specifically say he ""wanted"" states to declare bankruptcy, only that he supports it as an option. ""I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route. It saves some cities. And there's no good reason for it not to be available,"" McConnell said. ""My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don't have to do that. That's not something I'm going to be in favor of."" As The Atlantic reported, McConnell expanded on his bankruptcy comments in another radio interview that day: ""We're not interested in solving their pension problems for them. We're not interested in rescuing them from bad decisions they've made in the past, we're not going to let them take advantage of this pandemic to solve a lot of problems that they created themselves (with) bad decisions in the past."" That brings us to Tillis and how closely he has ""agreed"" with McConnell. Audio of the April 24 town hall shows a constituent named Charles saying he has a question about the future: ""Will the Senate vote to bail out poorly-run states that were near bankrupt before COVID-19 hit?"" Tillis wasn't asked about states in general. He was asked specifically about ""poorly-run states that were near bankrupt"" prior to the pandemic. Tillis said he doesn't think those states should be bailed out. ""Well, Charles, that's a great question and personally I don't think we should, and I don't think that we can,"" Tillis said. He then said the $2 trillion economic stimulus gave him ""pause,"" but was worth it. Then he used North Carolina's state government as an example of good financial stewardship: ""I'm not so sure that taxpayer dollars for North Carolina should go to a state, a county, or a city that, like you said, was in poor economic shape before we ever had the virus. We need to take care of first responders. We need to take care of law enforcement. And we will do that. But I don't believe that I can support any measure that is effectively a bailout for poorly run state and local governments. ""We can look at things on a case-by-case basis where it's very clear that the damage is done because of the virus impact. But a broad-based bailout is not something I'd be prepared to support."" That's when Tillis brought up McConnell's comments. ""You probably heard Leader McConnell's comments about it, I'm more or less aligned with Leader McConnell on the issue,"" Tillis said, a few seconds later adding: ""I think we need to work on executing (plans already signed into law) and not really entertain a discussion of trillions more going into jurisdictions that really need to get their financial houses in order."" Cunningham spokeswoman Rachel Petri said Tillis's comments about McConnell show he's in lockstep with the Senate leader, who said ""I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route."" Tillis elaborated on his position in an interview with Fox News radio's Guy Benson on April 29. Benson asked him about McConnell's comments that money should not cover pre-pandemic budget holes (without mentioning the bankruptcy idea). Tillis said the Senate ""will go back and take a look at well-documented cases for the costs of the response, potentially the cause of some of the revenues in this year based on closures."" When PolitiFact asked about Tillis' position on the bankruptcy option, Tillis campaign spokesman Andrew Romeo said: ""Sen. Tillis has never advocated for any state or municipality to go bankrupt as a result of COVID-19, has already delivered billions of dollars in relief to North Carolina, and has consistently said that he supports providing targeted assistance for communities that have been impacted by the virus."" Cunningham tweeted, ""Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed."" The tweet lacks so much context that it's several degrees removed from what's actually been said. McConnell wasn't talking about just any states, he was talking about states that were in poor financial shape before the coronavirus outbreak. Additionally, McConnell said he supported bankruptcy as a novel option for states, particularly for those with pre-existing pension liabilities. Tillis said he agreed with McConnell ""more or less."" He agreed that Congress shouldn't pay for revenue losses that aren't related to the coronavirus outbreak. But Tillis never actually said he wanted states to go bankrupt. And he said he will consider federal aid for smaller governments on a case-by-case basis. Cunningham's tweet exaggerates what McConnell said and misrepresents what Tilils has said about federal coronavirus aid. It contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." Claim: Mitch McConnell said he wanted states to go bankrupt instead of the federal government providing relief. Today, Thom Tillis agreed.
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: Cost wasn't mentioned, but given that this is light activity, we'll rate this N//A. Still, the story could have explicitly said that the activities that are highlighted in this study probably have no cost associated with them. The story notes that engaging in light activity for 30 minutes per day reduced relative risk of mortality during the study period by 12 percent. It also noted that engaging in moderate activity for 30 minutes per day reduced that risk by 39 percent. But what about the absolute risk reduction? As the NIH has noted, the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the risks. For that reason, we won't ding this story for not going into details regarding the risks associated with light physical activity. Nonetheless, it would have been nice to see the story mention that older adults may want to consult with a health professional to determine what types of activity they should (or should not) engage in. The story does briefly point out that this type of study can't prove cause and effect, though it quickly pivoted to a "however" to weaken that point. A limitation that should have made it into the news story is that individuals weren't assigned a level of activityrather they presumably went about their usual activities for a week (just a week) and the device captured it. The authors then categorized individuals into three categories of increasing level of activity. The challenge is that people who are less active, may be that way for a reason. Maybe they are sick, or have other issues that make them less active. And that might have been a temporary problem. This helps readers understand why the study can't prove cause and effect. There's really no disease mongering here, though there is one note we'd like to make that falls under this heading as well as anywhere. The story tells readers that increased physical activity is "linked to a lower risk of death." Reader, we have bad newsdeath is inevitable. It would be more accurate to note that physical activity reduced the relative risk of dying during a given timeframe (in this case, the three-year period of observation). No outside sources are cited in the story, nor does the story make clear who funded the research (addressing potential conflicts of interest). The study compared different levels of physical activity. As such, it was comparative. However, there are other important lifestyle habits that affect mortality (cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol, for instance), and it would be interesting to know how helpful light activity is compared to these other lifestyle modifications. The story does a good job of defining what light activity means, which is important for understanding how accessible it is. Bike riding is a moderate activity, for example, whereas "strolling around the neighborhood" is a light activity. The story refers to national guidelines and some (nonspecific) "recent analyses," noting that the "new study refutes that research." But is this the first study to show benefits like these from engaging in low-intensity daily activities? No. For example, this 2014 study published in Preventive Medicine examined "examine[d] the association between household physical activity and all-cause mortality in a cohort of older adults from Spain." The study relied on self-reporting from study participants, but found that among other things "Household physical activity may have benefits for longer survival in older women." It would have been interesting to see the article look at how the new study compared to the 2014 study. Do the findings support each other? How do they differ? This sort of context would be valuable for readers. What does appear novel is the use of a device to assess activityversus recording what people report as their activity levels. This is borderline. The story maps very closely to the news release. However, the story appears to incorporate quotes from study author Andrea LaCroix that are not found in the news release. Claim: Want to Live Longer? Every Movement Counts, Even Cleaning the House
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: The article doesn't discuss what the study authors new "way" of assessment might add in the way of costs. The story didn't provide any data to give a sense of the potential benefit of the new approach. No numbers were given to explain how well it worked. Because there is so little information about the imaging technique and what it requires, it's hard to say what the harms or benefits might be, but certainly the story might have mentioned the potential risk of drug intervention (or non-intervention) if the inflammatory cell "marker" is valid as a predictor of heart attack risk. Also, it would have been worth discussing if the new imaging technique exposes patients to radiation, which has been shown to increase the risk of cancer if used repeatedly. The story does not adequately establish the quality of the evidence, except to indicate that more research is needed, implying that this is preliminary work. From the journal article itself: "The main limitation of this study is the lack of data demonstrating a predictive value of these imaging markers for clinical outcomes, which falls beyond the scope of this current work." There was no such caveat in the news story. Rather, the headline trumpets that it "May Predict Heart Attacks." No disease mongering here. The story stated that "about 750,000 Americans have a heart attack every year." The article appears to quote only those who conducted the study. The article does describe current means of assessing heart attack risk, as well as some interventions (surgical and medical) to address those risks. However, the article doesn't mention how this new technique would stack up against standardtestslike stress tests or nuclear perfusion scans. There also is the option of simply treating people with risk factors and not utilizing imaging tests. The story explains that more research is needed before the technology might be available to everyone. The story focuses on the use of inflammatory heart tissue as having potentially better predictive value than current risk assessment tools for heart attack. But it's a reluctant satisfactory, because the narrative is confusing and nonumbers were given to estimate the scope of the potential benefithow well the new approach worked. We could not locate a release from the University of Oxford or Science Translational Medicine. Claim: New Heart Imaging Method May Predict Heart Attack
[A]:
0