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 Input:
Bottles of Corona beer speed past a worker in the bottling line of Mexico City's Modelo brewery, May 19, 2004. REUTERS/Andrew Winning He may be in for worse than a surprise: a nasty skin reaction that one doctor is calling "Mexican beer dermatitis." A substance in lime juice, if left on the skin in the sun, can cause the skin to become discolored, as if by poison ivy or a jellyfish sting and the marks can last for months, reports Scott Flugman in the Archives of Dermatology. Mexican beers, particularly Corona, are typically served with a lime slice wedged in the top of the bottle. The drinker shoves the lime into the bottle and holds his or her thumb over the bottle's mouth while turning the bottle over to mix in the juice. But if the drinker is not careful, the beer's carbonation can spray lime juice and beer all over his or her skin "especially in a patient who is shirtless by a beach or pool," wrote Flugman, a dermatologist in New York. The resulting reaction is due to a substance called psoralen, used to make the skin more sensitive to a wavelength of ultraviolet light, UV-A, used to treat certain skin conditions. Lemons contain psoralens too, but not as strong. "It's just a cosmetic issue," Flugman told Reuters Health, though he said the discoloration most frequently in people like bartenders who work outdoors with limes may take an emotional toll. "People are worried that it's something serious. You might have some brown spots you're been looking at for a few months," he said. Olive-skinned Caucasians may be especially susceptible. No ties have been shown between the reaction and skin cancer, said Flugman, who added that he sees two or three cases a year. They are often mystified why a dermatologist is asking them if they've recently drunk Mexican beer. His advice? "If you do this and you spritz the beer or the lime, just wash it off. Don't leave it on there and sit out in the sun," he said. Or, if you are disinclined to get up for a while, "throw a towel over it."

Ex Output:
Hold the lime with Corona, may cause skin reaction.

Ex 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 patientthat 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.

Ex Output:
Scientists Edge Closer To A Blood Test To Detect Cancers

Ex Input:
"The story does not mention costs of multivitamins, but it's safe to assume this is common knowledge. The story provides absolute rates of excess numbers of deaths expected with heavy vitamin use. If treatment is considered to be heavy multivitamin use, harms associated with this treatment are discussed, namely an increased risk of advanced types of prostate cancers. Other harms noted with specific vitamins such as A and E are also mentioned. The article tells readers this is not a randomized controlled trial, where half the group would be randomly assigned to an intervention and half would not. It provides some context for interpreting the results, e.g. the study was not designed to prove vitamins affect cancer risk. No overt disease-mongering. The story does provide two independent sources of information. If treatment is considered to be heavy multivitamin use, alternative options could be considered to be taking recommended doses of multivitamins and/or taking no multivitamins at all, which are discussed. The article states that ""studies show that 35% of Americans take vitamins"" so we get a good feel for how available they are. The story does not mention whether heavy vitamin use is new or not, but this doesn't seem applicable, given that heavy vitamin use isn't a standard treatment in the first place. The story turned to two different sources from two different studies, so it is unlikely that it relied solely or largely on a news release."

Ex Output:
Multivitamin and prostate cancer link studied