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:
"Mitt Romney came to coal country on Aug. 14, standing before a crowd of miners in eastern Ohio and pledging to fight for their jobs. You could be forgiven if you thought this was much ado about 3,150 jobs -- the number employed directly by coal operations in Ohio, at least before two mines announced layoffs recently. But Romney's greater point was about how coal fires so many power plants in Ohio and the region, and how, he says, environmental regulation from President Barack Obama's administration threatens jobs at those plants, too. This could drive up the cost of electricity for every Ohioan, Romney said. This debate -- over the cost of electricity, the shift among power plants to natural gas, the environmental and health risks, the role the government should or shouldn't play -- has been building for years. And after the event, the Obama campaign had a response, saying that Romney's position on coal has changed substantially since he was governor of Massachusetts. ""Immediately after becoming governor, Romney condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people,"" said an Obama campaign news release. The claim was similar to one the Obama team made in a radio ad, and Obama reelection aides backed it with specific quotes Romney made in February, 2003, when Romney was the freshly elected governor of Massachusetts. The quotes: The Obama campaign also highlighted a Romney quote that had no lethal references but was just as strong. It came from a state of Massachusetts news releasein which Romney said: ""If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health."" Romney made each of these statements during a Feb. 6, 2003, showdown over the future of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station. In 2001, Massachusetts passed new rules to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, to be phased in over several years. The mercury standard would not be finalized until 2004. Romney supported the rules, as he made clear repeatedly. Massachusetts singled out its most egregious polluters as the ""Filthy Five"" plants, including Salem Harbor. Public health and environmental scientists at Harvard studied the emissions from two of the plants in 2000 and concluded that Salem Harbor was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms -- all per year. As occurs with similar studies that health authorities cite, local residents and others who wanted to keep the Salem Harbor plant open (for jobs and tax revenue) disputed those figures, saying they resulted from unproven modeling. It turned out that the Harvard scientists had revised their figures in 2002, putting premature deaths from Salem Harbor's pollution at 30 per year and reducing the number of emergency room visits to 400 and the asthma attacks at 2,000, according to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. But the scientists stood by the broader conclusion -- that emissions from dirty power plants can be deadly. The Harvard methodology has now been widely replicated and is respected by health scientists, according to several environmental authorities we spoke with. Romney appeared to accept their findings, too. In the above-mentioned news release, the commonwealth of Massachusetts quoted Romney in the third person on the danger factor: ""Romney said that the Salem Harbor plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. He also pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming."" This was in a news release issued by the governor's aides, not some radical outside instigator. It was issued under the name of Romney, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Romney's development chief, Douglas Foy. According to the Boston Globe, Romney hired Foy from the Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF, a leading environmental advocacy group in Massachusetts. The spat with Salem Harbor turned into a testy exchange that February day after Salem Harbor's then-owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, sought an extension until 2006 to comply with Massachusetts' emissions rules -- and plant supporters showed up to to demand that the governor back off. Romney was adamant that the company comply by 2004. His statements that day show how he felt: ""That plant kills people."" And to those including city officials who argued that this would cost jobs: ""I will not create jobs that kill people."" Based on some of the quotes, it might appear that Romney was speaking only about that single plant (which a new owner, Dominion, is phasing out, after which a subsequent third owner will build a natural gas plant there). That's what we thought when we began looking into this. It is also what the Romney campaign told us in email. So was it accurate for the Obama campaign to imply that Romney's words characterized his broader attitude toward coal emissions when he was governor? We kept looking, because people in the environmental community told us it was a valid claim. And the news release under Romney's name suggested it as well. Romney spoke of plants, not just a single one, when he pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming. Still, to give him the benefit of doubt, what if he really just meant the Salem Harbor plant? Wasn't that plant particularly egregious when compared with coal-fired plants under attack by federal regulators today? No, say environmentalists who include authorities from the CLF. Their claims are supported by U.S. EPA emissions data we verified independently. ""When he said that 'this plant kills people,' he was talking about a plant that produced pollution comparable to the emissions of plants in the Midwest,"" said Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the conservation foundation. Jonathan Peress, an environmental and regulatory attorney who works for the CLF and was recently chairman of the American Bar Association's air quality committee, added in a separate interview with PolitiFact Ohio that Romney promoted Massachusetts air standards that were almost identical to those the U.S. EPA wants to enforce -- and that Romney now criticizes. ""The levels of emissions that he was talking about were levels that were virtually identical to what the EPA has proposed,"" Kaplan agreed. ""He was steadfastly standing behind emissions reductions that are the same as those currently attacked."" To see if this was accurate -- that the emissions Romney decried were similar to or even weaker than those under current attack now by the EPA (whose rules Romney now attacks) -- we examined the emissions cuts that Massachusetts wanted and data on the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions at Salem Harbor and in the Midwest. The U.S. EPA keeps the information in its extensive Clean Air Markets database. Nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone and smog. Sulfur dioxide is tied to particulate matter and is considered particularly dangerous to health, said Jonathan Walke, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. The level of both these substances was multiple times lower at Salem Harbor, even when Romney was trying to force the plant to reduce emissions, than at Eastlake in Northeast Ohio and several other Ohio plants we checked. Our comparisons included multiple years, including Salem Harbor in 2003 with Ohio plants in 2011. To compensate for differences in electricity output, number of boilers and hours of operation at different power plants, we checked the data for emissions per megawatt-hour. The pattern held. ""It's all the same pollution, albeit in higher quantities in Ohio,"" Walke said. You might ask why we looked at Eastlake. It's because FirstEnergy Corp. plans to shut down two of that plant's boilers rather than spend heavily on scrubbers to comply with EPA rules. This is one of several coal-burning plants at the heart of the current jobs-versus-pollution debate, although Romney did not mention it specifically. It's important to note that the rules on nitrogen and sulfur are not what is prompting the FirstEnergy shutdowns. New EPA rules on mercury and toxic metals are the cause of planned closures in Eastlake. The tougher limits won't take effect until 2014. The EPA aims to cut mercury emissions by 79 percent. But as the Massachusetts governor, Romney supported mercury reductions in his state, too. In 2004, he signed off on a rule aiming to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent by 2012. With Romney's name on the letterhead, Massachusetts in May, 2004, issued a lengthy set of justifications for the mercury rule. Among them: ""First, [new research] confirms and extends our understanding of mercury's harmful effects on learning, attention and other critical cognitive skills in children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to mercury levels may show signs of attention deficit disorder, impaired visual-spatial skills and poor coordination."" Romney was ""a champion"" of those mercury regulations, said Shanna Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. ""He was one of the reasons we got them through."" Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said, ""That plant kills people."" But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced. And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal. If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, it's fairly safe to assume that ""one would also support such things nationally,"" said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health. The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions -- the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio. The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say Romney was right or wrong at one time. But with additional information from emissions data, interviews and the public record of his governorship, the Obama campaign claim about Romney's coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day. On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates ."

Ex Output:
"Barack Obama Says that as Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney ""condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people."

Ex Input:
In that time, at least 20 residents died and more than 100 suffered injuries after homes failed to provide care as required, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found in examining reports issued by the Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH), which licenses and inspects long-term care facilities and investigates complaints. The actual death toll may be much higher. In interviews with the newspaper, and in lawsuits, families have tied other deaths and injuries for which there were no state citations to improper care. The newspaper examined thousands of regulatory citations and hundreds of police reports from 2015 through 2018, reviewed lawsuits and interviewed dozens of people. The investigation found breakdowns in care that often were rooted in inadequate staffing, poor training or efforts to cut costs. In some cases, seniors tried to summon staff for help and got no response for hours, wandered away from facilities unnoticed, or languished in unsanitary and hazardous conditions. Others fell repeatedly, suffering bruises, bloody faces and broken bones. Some suffered in pain for days without treatment. In some cases, caregivers physically, verbally and sexually abused residents. Georgians seeking care for aging family members pay thousands of dollars a month to facilities that have popped up across the state in recent years promising luxurious amenities and top-flight attentiveness. Many offer to provide safe, consistent care. But the reality, is that too often thin staffs are overwhelmed, seniors have been treated callously or ineptly, and safeguards have been ignored, the investigation discovered. In a 2016 case, it took an aide at a Savannah facility 26 minutes to respond to an emergency call from a resident who had diabetes and high blood pressure. The resident was unconscious by that time. Another 19 minutes elapsed before anyone called 911. When the ambulance made it to the hospital, the resident was pronounced dead. In October 2018, a 92-year-old woman was repeatedly bitten by ants at a facility in Sandy Springs. The upscale facility failed to eradicate the insects that had been reported in her room a week earlier. Then, over two consecutive days, ants attacked the woman in bed. She died days later. Though abuse is less common than neglect, police and DCH records showed that more than 100 residents reportedly were abused by workers of assisted living and large personal care homes over the four years the newspaper's investigation covered. Records showed that at home near Athens, a worker in 2017 hit an 86-year-old woman with dementia who tried to leave the facility, bloodying her nose and bruising a cheek. The same worker was accused of pulling an 84-year-old resident's hair and striking her. A facility in Decatur received a state citation in March 2018 after an aide was accused of abusing a resident late at night. Nine months earlier, a separate allegation of abuse involving two other employees surfaced on the night shift. Will Johnson, the elder abuse prosecutor with the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, told the newspaper that elder abuse and neglect is "not acceptable in our society, in our state, anywhere." "No one who has lived their life and reached 70, 80, 90 years of age, raised a family, contributed to society they should never be left to rot in a bed or be bashed in the face or have all of the money that goes to their care squandered," Johnson said. State Rep. Sharon Cooper, R-Marietta, said, "I'm saddened for the people that were injured, and I'm appalled for humanity in general that our elders would be treated this way." "Certainly, as a state, we need to intervene," said Cooper, who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee. Top officials at DCH refused repeated requests over several months to meet with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. After the newspaper provided its findings to DCH, a spokesman again declined an interview, saying it wasn't in their "best interest." The agency would only answer questions submitted in writing. While officials didn't directly address some questions, DCH Commissioner Frank W. Berry said the agency manages a heavy workload and is always seeking ways to improve and carry out its mission. "The health and well-being of Georgians is always our top priority," Berry wrote. A 2011 state law paved the way for assisted living communities, expanding choices for families whose only options previously were personal care homes, which serve seniors who need help with meals and medication reminders, or nursing homes for those requiring intense assistance. Assisted living facilities allow a higher level of care from staff who can administer medication and assist residents who need help moving around. The 2011 legislation and the rapid graying of the population have led to facilities' taking in more residents who in their 80s and 90s who have chronic care needs. While facilities market an active lifestyle, some have residents who can't push their own wheelchairs or who need assistance to get out of bed, dress or eat. Some residents are unable to speak. The state cited facilities 238 times for admitting residents with conditions and illnesses that staff could not handle. At the same time, the for-profit companies that dominate the industry have incentives to keep their costs low, which translates to minimal staffing, said Catherine Hawes, Regents Professor Emeritus at the Texas A&M Health Science Center and a nationally recognized expert on long-term care. "It's like - let me sit down and write a prescription for disaster," she said. "You're writing a prescription for abuse and neglect." ___ Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, http://www.ajc.com

Ex Output:
Allegations of neglect, abuse at Georgia elder facilities.

Ex Input:
The one present Roy Collette wasn't looking forward to getting for Christmas 1988 was those damned pants. Yet he knew he was in trouble as soon as the flatbed truck bearing a concrete-filled tank off a truck used to deliver ready-mix rolled up. Sure as God made little green apples, those pants had to be in there. And he was going to have to fish them out, else declare his brother-in-law the winner of a rivalry that had then spanned 20 years. Being the sport he is, brother-in-law Larry Kunkel thoughtfully supplied the services of a crane to hoist the concrete-filled tank off the flatbed. What's this game, you ask? What was the significance of these pants, and why were two grown men going to such efforts year after year to retrieve them, only to send them off again? It all began in 1964 when Larry Kunkel's mom gave him a pair of moleskin pants. After wearing them a few times, he found they froze stiff in Minnesota winters and thus wouldn't do. That next Christmas, he wrapped the garment in pretty paper and presented it to his brother-in-law. Brother-in-law Roy Collette discovered he didn't want them either. He bided his time until the Christmas after, then packaged them up and gave them back to Kunkel. This yearly exchange proceeded amicably until one year Collette twisted the pants tightly and stuffed them into a 3-foot-long, 1-inch wide pipe. And so the game began. Year after year, as the pants were shuffled back and forth, the brothers strove to make unwrapping them more difficult, perhaps in the hope of ending the tradition. In retaliation for the pipe, Kunkel compressed the pants into a 7-inch square, wrapped them with wire and gave the "bale" to Collette. Not to be outdone, Collette put the pants into a 2-foot-square crate filled with stones, nailed it shut, banded it with steel and gave the trusty trousers back to Kunkel. The brothers agreed to end the caper if the trousers were damaged. But they were as careful as they were clever. As the game evolved, so did the rules. Only "legal and moral" methods of wrapping were permitted. Wrapping expenses were kept to a minimum with only junk parts used. Kunkel next had the pants mounted inside an insulated window that had a 20-year guarantee and shipped them off to Collette. Collette broke the glass, recovered the trousers, stuffed them into a 5-inch coffee can, which he soldered shut. The can was put in a 5-gallon container filled with concrete and reinforcing rods and given to Kunkel the following Christmas. Kunkel installed the pants in a 225-pound homemade steel ashtray made from 8-inch steel casings and etched Collette's name on the side. Collette had trouble retrieving the treasured trousers, but succeeded without burning them with a cutting torch. Collette found a 600-pound safe and hauled it to Viracon Inc. in Owatonna, where the shipping department decorated it with red and green stripes, put the pants inside and welded the safe shut. The safe was then shipped to Kunkel, who was the plant manager for Viracon's outlet in Bensenville. The pants next turned up in a drab green, 3-foot cube that once was a 1974 Gremlin. A note attached to the 2,000-pound scrunched car advised Collette that the pants were inside the glove compartment. In 1982 Kunkel faced the problem of retrieving the pants from a tire 8 feet high and 2 feet wide and filled with 6,000 pounds of concrete. On the outside Collette had written, "Have a Goodyear." In 1983 the pants came back to Collette in a 17.5-foot red rocket ship filled with concrete and weighing 6 tons. Five feet in diameter, with pipes 6 inches in diameter outside running the length of the ship and a launching pad attached to its bottom, the rocket sported a picture of the pants fluttering atop it. Inside the rocket were 15 concrete-filled canisters, one of which housed the pants. Collette's revenge for the rocket ship was delivered to Kunkel in the form of a 4-ton Rubik's Cube in 1985. The cube was made of concrete that had been baked in a kiln and covered with 2,000 board feet of lumber. Kunkel "solved the cube," and for 1986 gift-giving repackaged the pants into a station wagon filled with 170 steel generators all welded together. Because the pants have to be retrieved undamaged, Collette was faced with carefully taking apart each component. News accounts didn't record the form in which the pants were passed in 1987, and their 1988 packaging (concrete-filled tank) was mentioned at the beginning of this page. Sadly, 1989's packaging scheme brought the demise of the much-abused garment. Collette was inspired to encase the pantaloons in 10,000 pounds of jagged glass that he would then deposit in Kunkel's front yard. "It would have been a great one really messy," Kunkel ruefully admitted. The pants were shipped to a friend in Tennessee who managed a glass manufacturing company. While molten glass was being poured over the insulated container that held them, an oversized chunk fractured, transforming the pants into a pile of ashes. The ashes were deposited into a brass urn and delivered to Kunkel along with this epitaph: "Sorry, Old Man Here lies the Pants An attempt to cast the pants in glass brought about the demise of the pants at last."

Ex Output:
For twenty-five years, two brothers-in-law traded the same pants back and forth between them as a Christmas gift, each time finding more inventive ways to wrap them.