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.

[EX Q]: "The story says that the average copayment for a month's supply of some of the topical NSAID medications is around $30. It would have been nice to include the cost of comparable oral medications. Although the story explains the available evidence comparing topical NSAIDs to oral pain relievers, highlights the limited number of direct comparisons, and carefully states the general consensus of experts, all of this solid reporting is undermined by a focus on personal anecdotal evidence over quantifiable benefits. Indeed, the reporter claims one medication provided immediate relief, a statement at odds with clinical trials that conclude that it usually takes hours for patients to feel the pain-relief effects of topical NSAIDs. The story summarizes the reported side effects of topical NSAIDS. What's more, the reporter points out that the potential risks in people who have other health problems or are taking other drugs have not been well studied. That insight is something we see too rarely. The story refers to a number of clinical trials and systematic reviews of the evidence. It highlights areas where evidence is lacking or inconclusive. It would have been helpful to point out that in placebo-controlled trials, almost as many people who received the placebo reported pain relief as did those who got the active medication. The story could have mentioned that the systematic review it referred to was published by the Cochrane Collaboration and also the sources of the other clinical trial reports, so that interested readers could more easily locate the original articles. The story does not exaggerate the common pains these drugs are intended to treat, but the personal anecdotes and opinions highlighted at the beginning and ending of the story are unrepresentative of the typical experiences reported by participants in clinical trials and create a powerful impression that is at odds with the evidence. The story includes quotes from several experts and points out that two of them have accepted consulting fees or research support from pharmaceutical companies. The essence of this story is an attempt to compare topical NSAIDs with pills and other pain treatments. As noted above, though, the story does not mention that most people with minor pains feel better after awhile even if they don't take any pain relief medication. It also should have mentioned that the difference between placebo and active treatment groups in the clinical trials is often slim. The story reports that only three topical NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are approved for sale with a prescription in the United States, while several brands are sold over the counter in Europe. Part of the focus of the story is that NSAIDS have been around for a long time but only recently are being given a more serious scientific reassessment. As the story says, ""But a number of new controlled trials and meta-analyses like Dr. Moore's suggest that topical Nsaids are as effective as their oral counterparts for treating osteoarthritis in the knee and hand as well as musculoskeletal injuries like soreness and tendinitis."" The story includes several experts and mentions multiple studies."
[EX A]: Topical Gel Catches Up With Pills for Relief

[EX Q]: According to the website of the American Stroke Association (ASA) this eRumor is true. The American Stroke Association is a division of the American Heart Association. In an article published in February of 2003, the ASA says that a 60-second test can help determine whether someone may be experiencing a stroke. The three question test has been used by health care professionals as an initial way of determining whether someone may be experiencing a stroke. But a research project by North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, N.C. looked into the question of whether non-medical professionals could administer the short test and correctly identify the symptoms of a possible stroke. The conclusions was yes, that bystanders could be helpful in determining whether a person is experiencing a stroke. One of the reasons they looked into it was to see whether bystanders could be helpful to a 9-1-1 dispatcher in helping narrow down what is happening to a potential patient. The three questions given to the suspected stroke sufferers were: Can you raise your arms and keep them up?Can you smile?Can you repeat a simple sentence? The study found that when non-medical volunteers were asked by a telephone dispatcher to administer the test, they correctly identified the symptoms 96 percent of the timeespecially the raising of the arms and the speaking of a simple sentence. They were less effective in evaluating whether there was facial weakness in a smile, probably because of not knowing what the person's normal smile looked like. Doctors caution that this does not mean that citizens should try to diagnose stroke symptoms themselves.This study focused on citizens who were being given instruction over the telephone by emergency dispatchers. Any sign of weakness in the face, slurred speech, or weakness or numbness in the limbs should be evaluated by medical professionals immediately. If stroke victims are given proper help within 3 hours of the stroke, the ability to recover is greatly increased. CLICK HERE for more information posted on the the American Stroke Association website. updated 02/02/10 Comments
[EX A]: The eRumor says that the American Stroke Associations suggests a simple three question test to give to someone who may be experiencing the symptoms of a stroke.

[EX Q]: Early in the session, Democratic state Rep. Tonya Pfaff, a high school math teacher from Terre Haute, introduced an amendment to a school safety bill that would have allowed school corporations to use safety or security subsidies to provide students with school-based mental health services. A bipartisan group of lawmakers said substantial language involving mental health services was later removed because of criticisms from conservative organizations and parent groups, the Tribune-Star reported. "I'm disappointed that we didn't put any real money into dealing with mental health issues this session," Pfaff said. "We continue to talk about school safety, but we can't talk about it without talking about mental health and social-emotional wellness." Jennifer McCormick, the Republican state superintendent of public instruction, said financial backing for mental health services didn't receive the attention it warranted. "We were disappointed to see how the legislation ended up," McCormick said. "However, I have faith in our local schools that they are going to do what is right for kids" and provide access to needed services. The apprehension of conservative groups related to the mental health legislation "had to do with parental consent," said state Rep. Bruce Borders, a Republican from Jasonville. He said parents deserve to know what is being asked of their kids. "That's where most of the battles came in, over parental consent on some of these evaluations," Borders said. Terry Spradlin, executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association, said most of the school safety legislation prioritizes revamping building security and addressing threats, instead of prevention. "They really didn't do an adequate job on the prevention side, addressing the social-emotional learning and mental health needs of students," Spradlin said. "We've got more work to do in that area. ISBA will continue to be an advocate and bring forth some new ideas in future sessions to address those critical needs." ___ Information from: Tribune-Star, http://www.tribstar.com
[EX A]:
Indiana educators disappointed about mental health funding.