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: The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder's potential cancer risks. She used the company's baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a "proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder," she said in her lawsuit. Echeverria's attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized and told him she hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional warnings on its products. "Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years," Robinson said. "She really didn't want sympathy," he added. "She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women." The jury's award included $68 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, Robinson said. The evidence in the case included internal documents from several decades that "showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer," Robinson said. "Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30 year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product," he said. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury's decision. She says while the company sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson's baby powder. The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She had blamed her illness on her use of the company's talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years. Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar outcomes last year with juries awarding damages of $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for her cancers. Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs' lawyers did not presented reliable evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer. More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages. Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby powder at upcoming trials in the U.S., Goodrich said. ___ Associated Press writer Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. ___ Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1 .
Example Output: Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer.

Example Input: Baldwin, one of the Senate's most liberal members, beat Vukmir, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, by double digits, based on unofficial results. Baldwin won a number of counties that Trump took in 2016 when he narrowly carried Wisconsin by less than 1 point. Baldwin said in her victory speech Tuesday that her win sends a "loud and clear message" that people in Wisconsin want a senator who will stand up for them against special interests. Baldwin was an early target for outside conservative groups that spent millions attacking her over the summer. But Baldwin outraised Vukmir 5-to-1 and blanketed the airwaves with ads contrasting her support for the Affordable Care Act with votes Vukmir made in the state Legislature in favor of insurance companies. "Democrats, Republicans and independents sent a loud and clear message tonight that they wanted a senator who works not for the special interests, but someone who works for you," Baldwin said in her victory speech. Vukmir campaigned as the underdog and urged Republicans who supported Trump to surprise the pollsters like they did in 2016. But Democrats came through for Baldwin in a race that marked the first time in Wisconsin history both major party candidates for U.S. Senate were women. Baldwin had recent history on her side: In the last three midterm elections, no incumbent Wisconsin senator from the party not in the White House lost a re-election bid. Baldwin, 56, won her first local race at age 24 and was elected to the Senate in 2012, beating former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, in a year when former President Barack Obama was also on the ballot. Baldwin was the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. Baldwin and Vukmir disagreed on every major issue including health care, immigration, taxes, abortion, national security, gun control and criminal justice. Stephenie Hamen, a 42-year-old artist from Sun Prairie, said she voted for Baldwin, in part as a vote for women's rights and a vote against Trump. "I don't know if it was to vent (against the president)," she said. "It's a way to stand up for women as Americans and be heard. It's a scary time to be a woman in America. No matter what (Trump) says about being a white man in America, it's scarier for women and minorities. If the Republicans stay in power, we're writing a check for that party to do whatever they want. If we continue down that path we have no idea what's coming next." While Baldwin campaigned with former President Barack Obama and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vukmir rallied with Trump and forcefully supported his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. Baldwin voted against his confirmation. Baldwin is a supporter of Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill and ran as a defender of the Affordable Care Act. Baldwin cast Vukmir, a nurse, as the potential deciding vote to repeal the law and its guarantees of insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. Vukmir, 60, focused on Baldwin's handling of the opioid over-prescription crisis at the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center, saying her inaction let veterans down. But the widow and parents of a veteran who died there has come out in support of Baldwin, cutting television ads to help her and undercutting Vukmir's criticism. Baldwin recounted the story of her childhood illness that made her an advocate for universal health coverage, while also speaking in detail for the first time about her mother's struggles with mental illness and prescription drug abuse. Baldwin said that has fueled her fight against opioid abuse. ___ Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sbauerAP ___ For AP's complete coverage of the U.S. midterm elections: http://apne.ws/APPolitics
Example Output: Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Baldwin cruises to second term.

Example Input: "There was no discussion about the cost of increasing fruit and vegetable content in the diet, but it's safe to assume that most people know the costs from their grocery shopping. The story mentioned that the study it was reporting on found noreduction in breast cancer recurrence for individuals that reported eating more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. The researcher said ""We didn't find any harm in going over (a threshold of fruits and vegetables)."" This story presented a mosaic of information without any indication of the relation between the pieces. It opens witha statement that ""While it's true that adding fruits and vegetables to a woman's diet can help prevent cancer from recurring."". A nutritionistfollows with some guidance to breast cancer patients sharing her advice about choice of fruits on the basis of color; and that the food ""you eat matters tremendously"". It then provides ""data"" from a previous study, though the percentage reported is not consistent with the study results. Finally, the story goes on to discuss the results of the most recent study which were cast as showing that eating more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables doesn't provide any benefit or additional harm. But then they go back and talk about other dietary advice regarding meat, alcohol, and tofu without any indication of what the source is for this information nor that it is independent of the newly-highlighted study. Lastly there is a discussion between the anchor andmedical correspondent where the anchor suggests that cancer risk is due to genetics and the medical correspondent agrees that ""fate is a big part of it"". However genetics and fate are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably. There was no overt disease-mongering that is, exaggeration of the prevalence of breast cancer or recurrence. However, one weakness in the story is that it contained no information about prevalence. In the study highlighted in this report, 16.7 and 16.9% of the women (in the intervention vs. control groups) experienced a recurrence of breast cancer. Providing this information allows the viewer to have a sense of how often the event they hope to prevent actually occurs. The story sought independent perspectives. However, here are two suggested improvements: When the lead author of the highlighted study was interviewed, he was not identified as such; the nutritionist was identified by her work place without indicating that she was not involved in the highlighted study. The story failed to mention other breast cancer recurrence stragies (avoiding weight gain, medications, etc.) This story illustrated availability of fresh fruits and vegetables with a walk-through of a grocery store. That said, the study reported on involved an intervention designed to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, but not limited to fresh produce. It's clear that the study finding is new. However the story could have been much more clear on the context of other related research. The story sought independent perspectives."
Example Output:
Extra servings of veggies fail to prevent cancer