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'.

Example input: Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography&!1-positive recalls&biopsies were not included in the study,readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography&biopsies increase patient financial costs.This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating "Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a!1 alarm,a new study shows." Unfortunately the writer doesn't quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction.Instead,the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn't be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled.Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms&!1-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually.Part of the continuing controversy over screening mammography focuses on annual versus biennial screening.Because this study showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled&needing biopsies among women who are screened every other year,with no statistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer,the article should have emphasized those important findings.The piece states that the researchers noted that "!1 positive recalls may cause inconvenience&anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring." This article fails to include several important facts about the study.1)This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006.2)Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital.3)Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period.4)Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms.There was no disease mongering.No independent experts were quoted.The story did an adequate job comparing at a very high level annual screening versus biennial screening.Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States.The study did not examine a new procedure.There's no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release.
Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives
Example output: 1
Example explanation: This article reports on the results of a study of nearly 170,0 women who had screening mammograms beginning between age 40-59.The study found that over ten years of screening mammograms,over half of the women will experience a!1-positive recall for additional mammography.In addition,7%-9%of the women will have a biopsy for a suspicious lump which is not cancerous.Both of those percentages decrease if the woman is screened every other year rather than every year.Even with biennial mammography,41%of women will experience a recall over 10 years of mammography.The study's Principal Investigator emphasized that "in most cases,a recall doesn't mean you have cancer." She hoped this knowledge would reduce the anxiety of women who are recalled.The story never explained the size of the decrease in the number of!1 positives between annual(61.3%) and biennial screening(41.6%).Our first two reviewers were a researcher who specializes in health decisions and a breast cancer survivor trained in evidence by the Natiional Breast Cancer Coalition's Project LEAD.This study is valuable because it helps to quantify and compare the harms of annual and biennial screening,specifically the number of!1 positives and the number of unnecessary biopsies.Prior to this study,estimates of!1 positive screening mammography rates varied widely.The critical question is whether you can do less frequent screening,subject women to fewer harms and get similar results in terms of detection of "early stage" cancer.This study's data seems to suggest that answer is yes.
Q: Paragraph: "As many Americans grapple with the new reality of sheltering in place, social media posts have pointed to a purportedly stark choice in Russia. A March 23 Instagram post said, ""Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."" I love that A post shared by Val (@itsvalos) on Mar 22, 2020 at 11:27am PDT The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Is this something Putin said, or did? No. The idea appears to stem from a tweet by an Indian comedian whose account goes by the name Nasir Chinioti. The tweet says, ""#Covid_19 #StayAtHome Vladimir Putin has given Russians two options. You stay at home for 2 weeks or you go to jail for 5 years. No middle ground."" Two days later, the author of the original post tweeted, ""Just joke,"" with three emojis. (Oddly, many social media posts circulating didn't include the second part of the tweet, even though it's even more eye-catching: ""RUSSIA: Vladimir Putin has Dropped 800 tigers and Lions all over the Country to push people to stay home.. Stay Safe Everyone!!"") Just joke 😜😎😷 Looking through credible media reports, we found no evidence that Putin had given Russians the draconian choice between lockdown or jail. ""Schools, sports facilities, and other gathering places are closed, and it seems Moscow asked residents over 65 to stay home, from March 26 to April 14, but they offered them the equivalent of $50 in two payments, one at the beginning and one at the end,"" said Yoshiko M. Herrera, a political scientist at the University Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in Russia. ""He also ordered that phone and internet not be shut off and that other housing-related fines not be collected."" Herrera said that these measures, plus earlier measures to close its long border with China, seem appropriate, but she added that ""there are some big caveats."" ""There is a lot of skepticism and criticism of the statistics,"" she said, citing allegations of undercounting and misreporting coronavirus deaths in other categories. In recent days, the BBC reported, the infection rate in Russia ""has begun to escalate even according to official figures."" Social media posts have said ""Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."" Credible news accounts and experts on the region see no evidence of such a draconian choice in Russia. The claim appears to stem from a post by an Indian comedian, who later clarified that this was intended as a ""joke.""" Claim: "Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."
A:
0