Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Hillary Clinton's near-collapse at a Sept. 11 memorial service and the subsequent revelation that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days earlier has people wondering about the health of the two major presidential candidates. The Clinton campaign promised more medical data on her health, and Republican Donald Trump pledged to release details of a recent checkup. Both candidates have already released letters from their doctors saying they are healthy enough to be president. Clinton's team argues that Trump has released less information about his health than Clinton. In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, Clinton said her two-page 2015 letter from her physician is consistent with what presidential candidates have released in the past. ""You know, you've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama"" when the two ran for president, Clinton said. ""Donald Trump's doctor said he'd be the healthiest president in history. That's just not even serious."" When Cooper asked what additional information she would be supplying, Clinton did not offer any details. ""Well, we're going to be releasing more information, and I think it's fair to say, we've already met the standard of disclosure of past presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and President Obama."" Actually, there is no ""standard"" for the type of medical information that should be released. The experts we consulted agreed. But Clinton's disclosures are on the same level as Obama and Romney in previous elections. ""There is no 'standard' of medical disclosure, just whatever the voting public is comfortable with,"" said Jerald Podair, professor of history at Lawrence University in Wisconsin. ""This means, of course, that as much secrecy as possible has been the historical norm."" Thus, he said, the public didn't know about Grover Cleveland's cancer, Franklin Roosevelt's paralysis or John Kennedy's Addison's disease. ""All kept the true nature of their illnesses secret from the American public. Obviously, is is harder to do so today, but as Hillary ('darn these allergies') Clinton has shown, the system can still be gamed."" ""This is an imaginary standard set up by candidates,"" said Brooks Simpson, a presidential historian at Arizona State University. Interest in candidate medical records has varied over time. There was a lot of interest when John McCain ran against Obama in 2008. McCain was 71 and had a history of skin cancer. He released 1,173 pages of records going back to 2000. In contrast, medical records were not much of an issue in 2004 when George W. Bush, then 58, sought re-election against John Kerry, then 60. Both were known to be big fitness enthusiasts. Bush had received regular checkups as president but that year decided to have his physical after the election. As CNN reported at the time, ""Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry have released their full medical records, but there isn't much public pressure for either man to release more details. Americans may want a healthy commander-in-chief, but 61 percent say the president has the same rights as other citizens to keep medical records private, compared to just 38 percent in favor of releasing all information that might affect his ability to serve."" It's more of an issue today, in part, because both candidates are so old. ""These people are in the Ronald Reagan category,"" said Simpson. Trump, if elected, would be the oldest person to assume the presidency. Clinton would be the second oldest behind Reagan. ""Maybe 70 is the new 60, but these people are old,"" Simpson said. ""Neither one has really satisfied issues of disclosure in the public mind,"" although Clinton has been more forthcoming, he said. ""Trump's efforts have been pretty feeble. But the incident on Sunday and the cough just illustrated a personal attack narrative and has given traction to an accusation that her health is less than ideal. This is a way not just to raise questions about candidate health, but about candidate transparency."" When we contacted the Clinton campaign, spokesman Josh Schwerin acknowledged that there is no real standard. He said the candidate was simply referring to the examples of Obama and Romney as a relevant point of comparison. How do their medical summaries compare? Candidate Obama Romney Clinton Trump Year 2008 2012 2015 2015 Words in doctor letter 280 535 578 174 Blood pressure 90/60 130/80 100/65 110/65 Heart rate 60 40 72 Not mentioned Triglycerides 44 179 69 Not mentioned Total cholesterol 173 169 195 Not mentioned Good cholesterol 68 Not mentioned 64 Not mentioned Bad cholesterol 96 Not mentioned 118 Not mentioned Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 0.6 Normal Not relevant .015 Allergies mentioned? No Yes Yes No Past health problems detailed? No Yes Yes Yes Family history mentioned? Yes Yes Yes No Because there is no standard, the doctors of different candidates included different levels of detail. The letters for all four candidates gave blood pressure. The letters for Obama, Romney and Clinton offered at least some blood test results, such as total cholesterol. Trump's does not. Family history, a key factor for predicting a person's lifespan or potential health problems, is missing from Trump's letter. The doctors for Clinton and Romney go into more detail about the candidate's past health problems, but that may be because they had some issues in the past. We don't know about Trump's history, but the detailed 2014 health report for Obama once he became president says he's had no significant medical problems, including no surgeries. The most detailed template was Obama's annual presidential physical. The 2014 report contains far more information than he released when he first ran in 2008. It talks about immunizations. It lists medications (without giving doses), a fasting blood sugar level and cholesterol counts. There's also discussion of the status of his heart, lungs, eyes, head neck, bones, muscles, nerves and skin. ""Probably Hillary is about right since the standard is that most politicians conceal their debilitating illnesses or fabricate (maybe exaggerate) how wonderfully healthy they are,"" said Bert Rockman, professor emeritus of political science at Purdue University. Because of their age, ""there is bound to be something wrong with each of them despite Trump's likely-dictated note to his doctor, which meets the standard of a school boy note."" ""Of course, some candidates are in terrific shape Romney and Obama, for example, and Carter,"" he said. ""And you likely wouldn't run for president if you were seriously (physically) debilitated,"" putting the cases of Kennedy and Roosevelt aside. ""In other words,"" said Rockman, ""the bar is really low, and Hillary likely met it by historical standards."" Our ruling Clinton said, ""You've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama."" If Romney and Obama exemplify a standard, then the information Clinton has provided to the public is on a comparable level. But Clinton's statement implies a standard that doesn't really exist, according to the experts. And both the quality and quantity of information on presidential candidates has varied widely. Claim: You've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Ex Output:
2

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Publishing a study that found risk score tools are only around 46 percent accurate on how likely psychopathic convicts are to kill, rape or assault again, they said probation officers and judges should set little or no store by such tests. They warned that clinicians carrying out such classifications must be aware of their severe limitations, and make sure prisoners undergo comprehensive psychiatric diagnosis before any risks assessment is made. "If you apply these (tests) to somebody who is a psychopath, they're utterly useless, you might as well toss a coin," said Jeremy Coid, director of the forensic psychiatry research unit at Queen Mary University of London who led the study. "They will not predict accurately at all," he told reporters at a briefing in London about his findings. Coid and other forensic psychiatrists say the findings - which also showed the tools perform only moderately well in prisoners with disorders like schizophrenia, depression, drug and alcohol dependence - could have major implications for risk assessment in criminal justice systems. "There are increasing expectations of public protection from violent behavior, and psychiatrists can be seriously criticized if they make wrong decisions," he said. Seena Fazel, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Britain's University of Oxford, said the reliability of the tests' predictive ability was so low that it might be best not to use them at all - and warned that at the very least, their results should only be noted by parole boards, rather than acted upon. "If you're going to use these instruments, be aware of their strengths and limitations," he told reporters. The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy in the general population is around 1 percent, but that rises to between 15 percent and 25 percent among men in prison. Coid, whose study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, analyzed data from 1,396 male prisoners in England and Wales who were interviewed between six and 12 months before their release. All the men were serving sentences of two or more years for a sexual or violent offences. The prisoners were assessed for personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia, depression and drug and alcohol dependence, as well as being measured for psychopathy on a reputable scale known as Hare Psychopathy Check List. After their release, data on their re-offending rates was added to the study, and showed that among three different re-offending risk assessment tools used before their release, the accuracy among psychopaths was below 50 percent. While the tools were more accurate in predictions for prisoners with no mental health disorders - at around 75 percent accuracy - they were only around 60 percent right when it came to prisoners diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. For prisoners with anti-social personality disorders the predictive value of the tests ranged from poor to little more than chance, with an average 53.2 percent predictive accuracy. And for the 70 prisoners rated as psychopathic, none of the tests was statistically better than chance. Coid said the results suggest it is time to question the expectations put on psychiatrists and psychologists asked to forecast future behavior of offenders, and to consider what can happen to their reputations if predictions are wrong. "The easy solution is to be highly restrictive on who is released, and be risk averse. However, even for serious offenders, most will be released at some stage and someone has to carry out a risk assessment," he said. "We need to prioritize the development of new assessment tools for these hard-to-predict groups." Claim: Predicting violence in psychopaths is 'no more than chance'.

Ex Output:
2

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "During a Senate appropriations Feb. 25 subcommittee hearing, Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, said the U.S. flu mortality rate was about the same as the current estimated global mortality rate of the coronavirus outbreak. He made this statement during an exchange with Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) regarding what the acting secretary knew about the coronavirus, which causes a disease known as COVID-19. This C-SPAN video shows the full discussion between the two. Kennedy first asked what the worldwide mortality rate for coronavirus is, to which Wolf responded, that it was ""under 2%"" but that he would need to check with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get the actual figure and that ""it changes daily."" The Louisiana senator then asked, ""What's the mortality rate for influenza over, say, the last 10 years in America?"" Wolf answered: ""It's also right around that percentage as well. I don't have that offhand, but it's right around 2% as well."" We asked the Department of Homeland Security where Wolf's figure came from. A DHS spokesperson said in an email, ""As the acting secretary said in his hearing, he did not have that information on hand and refers to Health and Human Services -- the federal agency in charge of the federal government's coronavirus response."" The comparison of coronavirus to flu in terms of mortality rates seemed like an important mechanism to understanding the growing concern about the reach of coronavirus, so we decided to dig deeper to find out if these statistics hold up. We also asked experts to explain what the numbers mean in terms of risk. Digging into mortality rate numbers The CDC directed us to its online influenza resources and referred us to the World Health Organization for more information on coronavirus. Christopher Mores, a global health professor at George Washington University, helped make sense of some of the figures. He calculated the average, 10-year mortality rate for flu using CDC data and found it was 0.1%. That 0.1% rate is frequently cited among experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, called it ""sort of the canonical seasonal influenza mortality figure."" It's important to note, that although this percentage seems like a small number, influenza is responsible for an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 deaths annually. Now, for coronavirus. According to statistics released Feb. 17 by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the mortality rate for coronavirus was 2.3%. That's based on cases reported through Feb. 11 and calculated by dividing the numbers of coronavirus-related deaths at the time (1,023) by the number of the confirmed cases (44,672) of the coronavirus. (These numbers reflect the information available at the time of the secretary's testimony.) But this report has limitations, Mores said, including the vague way Chinese officials are defining who has been infected by the coronavirus. ""We have not been able to understand what precisely has gone on there,"" said Mores. ""They have changed their case definitions multiple times. It's murky what has gone into the case count and who has gone into being counted on cases."" The WHO said in a press conference Monday that in Wuhan, China, the city where the virus first hit, the mortality rate ranged from 2% to 4%. Officials said that in the rest of China, outside of Wuhan, the mortality rate of coronavirus is 0.7%. Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the mortality rate in China has since risen to 0.9%. Right now he doesn't see a similarity in the flu mortality rate and the coronavirus mortality rate. ""We don't have any evidence to that being the case,"" said Osterholm. Mores said U.S. health officials just don't have enough information to know whether the two mortality rates are similar. Understanding this comparison would offer a means to better understand the severity of the coronavirus. It could also help in educating the public about the novel illness. ""Until we can gain our own experience with this virus, it's going to be pretty squishy. So, all the numbers that you have come across here are within the range of possibility,"" he said. ""Absolutely, the hope is we will end up with something similar to the flu, but we just don't know yet."" Multiple experts told us that the number of coronavirus cases not just in China but worldwide has probably been undercounted because many people with the infection do not suffer serious symptoms and may not seek medical treatment. It is possible that only those who have tested positive are being counted as ""confirmed cases."" Until the case definition is expanded, they said, to include people clinicians think may have COVID-19 but who were not tested for it, then the total estimated number of cases will remain lower than the likely reality. But, if the number of cases widens to include those with mild symptoms who have not been tested, then the mortality rate will go down. This is the way mortality rates are calculated for the flu, said Mores. The numbers of flu illnesses and deaths are estimates based not only on positive flu tests, but also on doctors' suspicions and symptomatic diagnosis. One key difference between the flu and the coronavirus illness, Osterholm cautioned, is that, with the flu, the population has a partially built up immunity, whether through receiving flu shots or already having been exposed to the illness. Mores concurred. ""You know, the risk is this: We have a brand-new virus in a completely naive population on Earth, we're all susceptible to it. Everyone is potentially infectable with this virus,"" he said. ""Even with a high transmission rate and the low case fatality rate, that still becomes a massive number of ill and fatal cases."" Our ruling There are two ways to parse out this claim: First, is it true that the average U.S. mortality rate for flu is 2%? That's not true, according to data from the CDC and exchanges with multiple global health experts. On average, the flu mortality rate during the past 10 years has been 0.1%. In addition, Wolf and a DHS spokesperson admitted that the acting secretary did not have the statistics in front of him when he answered questions at the hearing about the mortality rates. Second, is it true the COVID-19 mortality rate is similar to the flu mortality rate? Wolf is also wrong on that account, based on the limited information currently known about the coronavirus. Recent data from the Chinese government set the COVID-19 mortality rate at 2.3%. That's vastly different from the flu's mortality rate of 0.1%. Experts also said that while it's possible the mortality rate from the new virus could come close to the flu's mortality rate eventually if the case definition of coronavirus is expanded -- it's too soon to make that assumption with the limited information available." Claim: The mortality rate for the flu is "right around" that of the new coronavirus: "It's right around 2%."

Ex Output:
0