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.

Example Input: In November 2018, the "Weird Facts" Facebook page posted a widely-shared meme which outlined the death of Joyce Carol Vincent, summarizing it as "In 2006, a woman (Joyce Carol Vincent) was found in her London flat, skeletonized, after 3 years of being dead with the TV still running": Notwithstanding the somewhat crass imagery used in the meme, this was unfortunately a largely accurate description of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Joyce Carol Vincent, who did indeed remain undiscovered at home for around two years, dying around December 2003. According to material prepared for release to the news media by the Metropolitan Police, as well as reports by the BBC and the Press Association, the following are the known facts surrounding Vincent's demise. Some readers might find the details disturbing. On 26 January 2006, Vincent's remains were discovered at her apartment in Wood Green, north-east London. Workers from the Metropolitan Housing Trust, an organization which provides affordable housing and is now known as Metropolitan Thames Valley, had forced entry while attempting to inquire about thousands of pounds of unpaid rent arrears. Vincent had been placed in the small apartment as part of a scheme for victims of domestic violence. Vincent's remains were badly decomposed, and pathologist Dr. Simon Poole later described them as being "largely skeletal," which supports the claim made in the "Weird Facts" meme. According to evidence heard at a coroner's inquest, Vincent was found lying on her back on the floor of her living room next to a shopping bag and Christmas presents which she had wrapped but never delivered. Her television was indeed still switched on when Vincent was found. She was identified by reference to dental records. Based on the expiration dates of food and medication found in Vincent's flat, it was estimated that she had died around December 2003, some two years earlier not three years earlier, as the "Weird Facts" meme and several news reports mistakenly stated. She was born in London to Grenadian immigrant parents in 1965, and was 38 years old at the time of her death. In the years after Vincent was discovered, the filmmaker Carol Morley tracked down her friends, colleagues and associates. In interviews which would ultimately form the basis of the 2011 documentary film Dreams of a Life, those who knew Vincent universally recalled their shock and disbelief at the circumstances of her death and discovery. In the film some friends recounted actually having read news accounts of her death in April 2006, but without an accompanying photograph, they did not connect the horrific circumstances of her discovery with the person they had known. According to those accounts, Vincent had for many years been a very social, popular professional young woman who worked in London's fast-paced financial district in the 1980s and 1990s, was highly intelligent and charming, and was remarkably attractive and frequently the object of male attention. Vincent, who was at one time an aspiring singer, was acquainted with the soul vocalist Betty Wright, and had dinner with other iconic musical artists, including Gil Scott-Heron, Jimmy Cliff, and Ben E. King. In 1990, Vincent briefly met and conversed with Nelson Mandela backstage at a concert in London's Wembley Stadium. Although she had many friends, Vincent's friendships appear to have been somewhat fleeting, and despite the deep affection in which she was held, she was known for "drifting" in and out of social groups and relationships and sometimes appeared troubled. Her acquaintances recalled that she was distant towards her family members. According to Morley's interviews with friends of Vincent, she became engaged to marry an unidentified man in the late 1990s, and the Metropolitan Police later noted that she had been involved in a "domestic incident" in 1998. In Morley's documentary, Vincent's friends observed that she was likely to have been in at least one abusive relationship during that time. By 2001, Vincent left her job at the accounting firm Ernst & Young and progressively lost contact with her family members, friends and former colleagues, working for a time as a cleaner. She changed addresses frequently but moved into her final apartment in Wood Green in February 2003, having been placed there as part of a women's refuge program for victims of domestic violence. Her friends have speculated that she may have become isolated and withdrawn over time because she was ashamed of the abuse she had suffered and the shift in her professional and personal circumstances, and she may also have been avoiding detection by an abusive former partner. In November 2003, she was briefly hospitalized after vomiting blood and was diagnosed with a peptic ulcer. Although she is believed to have died around a month later, the coroner was unable to arrive at a cause of death due to the decomposition of her remains by January 2006. She also suffered from asthma, which was cited by her friends as a possible cause of death.
Example Output: In 2006, the skeletal remains of Joyce Carol Vincent were found in her home, with the television on, years after her death.

Example Input: We were surprised to see that a story that covered as much ground as this one did somehow missed costs. The competing story by NBC spelled out the costs. The story nicely explained that while one of the new studies showed, as expected, that following the updated statin guidelines did increase the number of people who would be treated with statins, following the guidelines would apparently not have saved a significant number of people from dying or having a heart attackor stroke. The story said, "Among the people eligible for statins under the old guidelines, 6.9 percent had a heart attack orstrokeor died from coronary disease over the ensuing nine years. Among those eligible for statins under the new guidelines, the figure was 6.3 percent, almost as high. That suggests that the new guidelines do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." At the same time, the story noted that the new guidelines "over all did a better job in discriminating between those who should and should not get statins." It said that "only 1 percent of participants deemed ineligible for statins under the new guidelines had a heart attack or stroke over nine years, compared with 2.4 percent of those ineligible under the old guidelines." While an NBC story also used absolute numbers in talking about the potential benefits in terms of heart attacks, we liked the greater level of context provided in the Times piece. Nevertheless, we think it would have been useful for the Times to include the Number Needed to Treat in its discussion of benefits this is an easy-to-understand metric that was reported in the study. In addition, we question the Times's contention that the new criteria "do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." According to the study, approximately 94% of both guideline groups did not have a cardiovascular event, and yet the new criteria now extend the use of statins to much larger number of people. In light of such findings, it's unclear that the new criteria don't lead to unnecessary treatment for more people as the Time states. We wish the story had explored this result more thoroughly. We thought that NBC did a better job detailing some of the potential harms from statin use, but we give the Times credit here for framing the story as a discussion of risks vs. benefits and making it clear that experts critical of the new guidelines believe that they "would lead millions of additional people to take statins, exposing them to potential side effects such asmuscle painor damage with little to gain." Covering two studies in little more than 1,000 words is already a feat. Doing so while bringing in enough context to explain the caveats to the study is an order of magnitude greater. Compared to the NBCpiece, the Times did a superior job showing that, despite the enthusiasm in some quarters of the scientific community, the two studies did not settle the debate over whether statins should be more widely prescribed. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story sought out and made good use of independent sources. It mentions that the guidelines were widely criticized and links to some printed criticisms made at the time. It quotes a variety of supportive and critical researchers regarding their opinions on the new research. The storydid not make any reference to dietary changes, lifestyle changes, or exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely prescribed. One in four Americans take them by some estimates. The story established that the findings of the studies were not novel but rather were in keeping with earlier findings about statins. Because it contains comments from independent experts, we can be sure the story did not rely excessively on any news release.
Example Output: 2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins

Example Input: A man walks his dog through Central Park in New York August 27, 2010. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson The ban, which officials hope will prevent problems caused by second-hand smoke, adds to the city's 2003 ban on cigarettes in bars and restaurants. The new law will not be enforced by police but by some 200 parks personnel who watch over the city's 29,000 acres of park land and beaches. Violators face a $50 fine but officials say the ban is meant to be largely self-enforcing. "We don't think that people should be exposed to those chemicals when they go to a park to enjoy the fresh air," city Health Commissioner Thomas Farley told Reuters. Saleswoman Polonia Jourdain, sitting on a park bench with her 8-month-old nephew, said she was happy with the ban. "I don't want to smell smoke wherever I go," said Jourdain, 17. "The smell of cigarettes makes me nauseous and gives me headaches." New York's City Council voted in February to broaden the city's smoking prohibitions to cover its 1,700 parks, beaches, boardwalks and pedestrian plazas, such as Times Square. New York follows Chicago and Los Angeles, which have already enacted similar bans. New Yorkers still can smoke on sidewalks, parking lots, streets and in their homes, although many landlords of rental properties do not allow it. Not everyone was so pleased by the new law. The ban represents "an extreme revocation of civil liberties rather than telling people to just walk away," said Audrey Silk, a member of New York Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment. "If you held up the evidence up to sunlight, it would disintegrate," she said. Some New Yorkers said they were confused by the limits. "Can you smoke on the sidewalk next to a park?" asked attorney Alex Roberts, 36, smoking a cigarette in violation of the ban. New York health officials say cigarettes kill more than 7,000 residents a year. In 2002, 21 percent of New York adults smoked and the percentage is now down to 15.8 percent, Farley said. Bloomberg has promoted health measures including a ban on trans fats in restaurant food and a requirement that chain restaurants display calorie counts on menus. He has campaigned nationally for food companies to cut salt levels in their products and for the federal government to ban the purchase of sugary drinks with food stamps federal vouchers used by 42 million low-income Americans to buy food.
Example Output:
Beaches, parks off limits to New York smokers.