TASK DEFINITION: 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'.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "During ongoing controversy over United States Postal Service slowdowns and mail-in voting in August 2020, historian Heather Cox Richardson posted a status update to FacebookquotingUnited States President Donald Trump as saying that withholding USPS funding meant "they can't have universal mail-in voting":The post began:August 13, 2020 (Thursday)Today was another one for the history books.This morning, in an interview with Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo, Trump came out and said it: he wants to starve the United States Postal Service to destroy mail-in voting. Claiming that mail-in voting favors Democrats, he said: "Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots Now, if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting, they just can't have it."It was fairly easy to determine the veracity of the quote; myriad news outlets in the United States and abroad covered the interview between Trump and Bartiromo on August 13 2020. A clip of the comments also circulated on Twitter:Trump this morning why he won't fund US Postal Service. "Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots But if they don't get those two items that means you can't have universal mail-in voting." pic.twitter.com/73NBmSnoNC The Recount (@therecount) August 13, 2020That video clip started with Trump saying "they want," with no previous context about the "they" he referenced. Those comments appeared after memes began circulating, warning voters to avoid using USPS to submit ballots in November 2020:'Don't Mail Ballots In, Drop at Board of Elections, This is an Inside Tip from a Postal Worker, Can't Say More than That'Both controversies occurred against the backdrop of comments made by Trump in March 2020, in which he appeared to express disapproval of broader access to voting:Trump openly admitting if we made voting easier in America, Republicans wouldn't win electionsTrump: ""The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."" pic.twitter.com/x5HmX6uogo Lis Power (@LisPower1) March 30, 2020With respect to the August 13 2020 Bartiromo interview on Fox Business, most clips and transcripts started with "they," making it not entirely clear which "they" Trump referenced. However, Slate published a partial transcript of the portion of the video about USPS funding and mail-in voting. Bartiromo asked what specifically Democrats were seeking that was "causing a breakdown in any deals":Bartiromo: What specifically are they pushing for that is causing a breakdown in any deals? Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats and the White House are still miles apart on any stimulus.Trump responded, indicating "they" were congressional Democrats:Trump: Well they're right. And it's their fault. They want $3.5 billion for something that'll turn out to be fraudulent. That's election money, basically. They want $3.5 billion for the mail-in votes. Universal mail-in ballots. They want $25 billionbillionfor the post office. Now they need that money in order to have post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now, in the meantime, they aren't getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if you don't get those two items, that means you can't have universal mail-in voting. Because they're not equipped to have it. And you see how bad it's been with this Carolyn Maloney scam. She scammed her way into an election she probably lost. But they said mail-in ballots, its all mixed up. Paterson, New Jersey, same thing. Yesterday Virginia, 500,000 applications for ballots got sent to everybody, nobody even knows. Got sent to dogs. Got sent to dead people. Nobody has no idea what happened. They said, Oh we made a mistake, I'm sorry. Five hundred thousand ballots sent in Virginia. How do you feel about Virginia going in there when you have 500,000 phony ballot applicants? And this is all over.Bartiromo asked about whether quibbling over USPS funding and infrastructure for mail-in voting was "holding up money for the American people," referring to stimulus payments during the COVID-19 pandemic. In his second response, Trump confirmed that funding for mail-in voting was at issue in broader negotiations:Bartiromo: This is what's holding up money for the American people? They want mail-in voting and they want money for the post office? This is one of the sticking points that's holding back stimulus for Americans during this coronavirus?Trump: That's one of them. [Cross talk]Trump: That's one of them. That's right. Maria, how would you like to have $3.5 billion for mail-in voting. Billion! You know how much that is? Nobody has any idea, you people, Oh, you know, 3 billion. They want $25 billion for the post office, because the post office is going to have to go to town to get these ridiculous ballots in. You know, there's nothing wrong with getting out and voting. They voted during World War I and World War II. And they should have voter ID, because the Democrats scam the system. But two of the items are the post office, and $3.5 billion dollars for mail-in voting. Now, if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting. They just can't have it. So, you know.As such, the comments Heather Cox Richardson shared were accurate; Trump said Democrats sought money in order to have the post office functioning "so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots," and "if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money," and "they can't have universal mail-in voting they just can't have it." The commentary occurred across exchanges with Bartiromo, in the same short section of an interview on Fox Business. The segment in its entirety can be viewed here.Comments" Claim: "On August 13 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump said: ""They need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots... Now, if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting, they just can't have it.""

SOLUTION: 2

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The story does discuss costs, but the framing is problematic. The story, based on a conversation with one source, the study's lead investigator, says, "It's difficult at this point to predict costs. However, he expects costs will not approach those for Provenge, the pricey treatment vaccine for prostate cancer approved by the FDA in 2010. Provenge costs $93,000 for the one-month, three-dose treatment. Medicare covers it." This tells readers that, no matter what the drug costs, Medicare likely will cover it. We appreciate the effort to bring cost information into the story, but this type of information is misleading. The story does explain that only one patient remains cancer free following the study. It then details how for most of the patients cancer continued to progress after 2 months. It says that the median overall survival in both the breast cancer and ovarian cancer patients was less than 16 months. But the story is framed in such a way to highlight the one potentially positive outcome of the study and to downplay the negative. We read more sooner about the one patient who may have responded well to the vaccine than we do about the 25 other patients who did not. The story mentions side effects in a satisfactory way. Technically, the story provides readers with much of the information they would need to assess the validity of the study, but it comes out in bits and pieces. For example, we only find out near the end of the story that "The woman, who remains disease-free, had a previous treatment with a different treatment vaccine. 'That might have primed her immune system,' Gulley speculates. She also had only one regimen of chemotherapy, perhaps keeping her immune system stronger." This casts much doubt on the study's design, and it would have been nice to have seen some outside expertise brought in to either discuss those design problems or to torpedo the story altogether. Again, the story deserves high marks for being very specific in the lead and throughout the story. It says, that the vaccine is "for breast and ovarian cancer that has spread to other parts of the body" in the lead and later details the particular circumstances of the study cohort. It says, "The patients had already undergone a variety of treatments but the cancer was progressing. Twenty one of the 26 had undergone three or more chemotherapy regimens." This is the root of the story's main shortcoming. Almost all of the information in the story comes from one source: Dr. JamesGulley, who oversaw the study. Gulley is quite enthusiastic about this vaccine, despite the evidence, and the story needed more perspectives to put this vaccine into a broader context. At the very end, there are a few comments from Dr. Vincent K. Tuohy, who also is working on a breast cancer vaccine. Because of his competing research, he seems to have a conflict, but even putting that aside, his comments were not used to their best effect. There was no comparison in the story to existing alternatives. The median survival, for example, is presented without the context of how long these patients might have lived had they been undergoing standard chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We give high marks to the story for saying right in the lead that the findings are from "a preliminary study in 26 patients." That tells readers both that the findings need to be interpreted with caution and that the treatment is not available to most people. The concept of vaccines for breast/ovarian cancer is indeed novel, and the story acknowledges that other vaccines are being studied. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Study: Vaccine for Breast, Ovarian Cancer Has Potential

SOLUTION: 2

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The total number of infections climbed to 41,495. "In the past 24 hours we had 117 new deaths and 3,186 new confirmed cases of people infected with the coronavirus," Kianush Jahanpur told state TV, calling on Iranians to stay at home. Iran has had an intercity travel ban since Thursday and the government has extended the closure of universities and schools and the suspension of all cultural, religious and sports events. "If necessary, we might impose tougher measures as our priority is the nation's safety and health," said Iran's first Vice President, Eshaq Jahangiri, according to state TV. Iran last week warned of a surge of cases as many Iranians ignored calls to avoid traveling for Persian New Year holidays that started on March 20. To stem the spread of the virus in crowded jails, Iran's judiciary on Sunday extended furloughs for 100,000 prisoners. On March 17, Iran said it had freed about 85,000 people from jail temporarily, including political prisoners. Iranian media on Monday, citing the governor of Iran's Fars province, Enayatollah Rahimi, reported that prisoners at one prison "broke cameras and caused other damage in two sections of the prison where violent criminals are kept". The state news agency IRNA said similar riots had erupted in other prisons since March 20. Families have called for the release of all prisoners. Claim: Iran plans tougher restrictions as coronavirus toll rises.

SOLUTION:
2