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.

Input: Consider Input: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the "high cost" down, but it doesn't provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the "children" studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, "which is too small a sample size to prove anything." It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as "a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person's ability to interpret language." The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by "training at a learning development center." If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, "it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome." Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

Output: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues

Input: Consider Input: Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO, due to objections from China which claims the island as its own, has infuriated the Taipei government during the coronavirus outbreak. Taiwan says it has been unable to get timely information and that Taiwanese lives have become political pawns. The WHO denies this. Taiwan has long described this as a pattern of behaviour that puts it at risk because of Chinese pressure to exclude it from international bodies. On Wednesday, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus rejected "racist slurs" against him, which he said had originated in Taiwan. Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen said Taiwan opposed any form of discrimination. "For years, we have been excluded from international organisations, and we know better than anyone else what it feels like to be discriminated against and isolated," she said in a statement. "If Director-General Tedros could withstand pressure from China and come to Taiwan to see Taiwan's efforts to fight COVID-19 for himself, he would be able to see that the Taiwanese people are the true victims of unfair treatment." Tedros is not a popular figure in Taiwan due to suspicions he is too close to China and the WHO's listing of Taiwan's virus case numbers under China's, despite it being totally separately governed. U.S. President Donald Trump sharply criticised the WHO on Tuesday, accusing it of being too focused on China and issuing bad advice during the coronavirus outbreak. Taiwan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Joanne Ou said Tedros' accusations were groundless and "imaginary" and Taiwan had not made any racist comments nor encouraged anyone to do so. Tedros' comments were irresponsible and he should clarify them and apologise to Taiwan, Ou said. "The concept of racism does not exist in Taiwan. We do not have a problem of racism," she told reporters. In Beijing, China's Foreign Ministry did not directly say whether it believed Taiwan was responsible for racist attacks on Tedros, but said the island was trying "to use the epidemic to seek independence" and that its plots would not succeed. Taiwan has been proud of its early and so far effective measures against the coronavirus, logging just 380 cases and five deaths to date, far lower than many of its neighbours. Taiwan reported just one new case on Thursday. The WHO said last month it was closely following the development of the coronavirus in Taiwan and learning lessons from how they are fighting it. However, Taiwan says the WHO ignored its questions at the start of the outbreak and has not shared with member states information Taiwan has provided, including details on its coronavirus cases and prevention methods. Under the slogan "Taiwan can help", the government last week announced the donation of 10 million faces masks to the United States, Europe and the 15 countries that still maintain formal diplomatic ties with the island. Ou said Taiwan would donate another six million masks, to northern and eastern Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia and U.S. states hardest hit by the pandemic.

Output: Taiwan rebuffs accusations it racially attacked WHO chief.

Input: Consider Input: There is no discussion of costs of treatment. The story provided data on the percentage of women who reported improvement. Also the story was very clear about the scope of the benefit. The story provided data on the side effects of the treatment. The story presented sufficient information about the size of the study and the study design. However, itt would have been desirable to note the study was based on an intention to treat analysis. About 20% of the subjects in each arm of the study did not complete the 8 weeks of treatments either due to lack of effectiveness or simply lost to follow up. While the story doesn't commit overt diseas-mongering, it does provide an unverified statistic (more than half) on the incidence of sexual dysfunction while on antidepressant treatment. What is unstated is that the incidence of sexual dysfunction related to depression is as high in some series. While the SSRI antidepressants are associated with sexual dysfunction the true incidence related solely to drug treatment is unclear. A clarifying statement related to the incidence of dysfunction related to the underlying disorder would have been helpful. In addition to relevant information from a company spokesperson and the lead author of the study reported on, the story included quotes from two individuals with relevant expertise who had no ties to the study. The story explained that sexual side effects were among the reasons why women may discontinue use of anti-depressant medication. The story mentioned a few other means for managing this medication side effect other than the medication that was the focus of the piece. The story did not explicitly explain that Viagra is a prescription medication which is FDA approved for treating erectile dysfunction. However, this omission is reasonable giventhe vast marketing and publicity about Viagra. Further, regarding availability, the story had a quote from a company spokesperson that the company would not be pursing approval for the use of this medication as a treatment for sexual dysfunction in women The story put the recent research finding in an accurate perspective by reporting results from previous studies had been 'inconclusive'. This story does not appear to be based on a press release.
Output: Women taking antidepressants may see some sexual benefit from Viagra