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'.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "The article includes price information for the drug's likely competitor, Plavixabout $4 per day, a significant cost for a drug that is taken daily, perhaps for a lifetime. The article correctly indicates that the price of Plavix is likely to come down when it goes generic in four years. The article properly includes speculation that the pricing of prasugrel may be a key factor in its adoption, should it be approved. The reporter includes considerable data about several key clinical endpoints of both benefits and harms, in two cases using both absolute numbers of patients and percentage increase or descrease. The reporter gets extra points for including ""number needed to treat""the number of people who would have clinically significant outcomes for each 1,000 treated with the drug. The story is built around the question of the drugs' risks vs. benefits. Data about harms are mentioned early and often, and described in detail. A direct comparision of the fatal bleeding rates for the two drugs would have been additionally useful. The New England Journal of Medicine article is based on results of a Phase III trial that appears to meet all the important criteria for significance: the study is prospective, the study group is large, the patients were randomized, the treatments double-blinded, the clinical endpoints signficant. While there is no placebo group, this was likely decided for ethical reasons, so all patients in the study would receive at least current best-practice treatment. The article assigns proper crediblity to the study, which to appear in NEJM has received rigorous peer review. The article does nothing to exaggerate the risk of death or the consequences of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular disease deaths. It allows the outcome figures to speak for themselves. The article quotes five experts in cardiology from different institutions, providing greater balance and context than just one or two experts would. In each case the relationship of the souce to the study and/or its funders is revealed. The considerable conflicts of interest of the investigators are made very clear. The article makes clear that prasugrel is being developed as an option to Plavix, and that Plavix with aspirin is currently best-practice treatment. The article makes clear that the drug prasugrel is not FDA approved and that its approval is uncertain. The article makes clear that this is a drug that is very similar to Plavix, and that it may be marginally more effective. No claims of novelty are made. The companies' joint press release, an enthusiastic announcement about the drug's benefits, bears little resemblance to this story." Claim: Blood drug trades benefit for risk

Output: 2

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Native American tribes have been among the hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. ""Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,"" Biden told The Arizona Republic May 21. ""He took more than a month to allocate Congress' emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. It's unacceptable."" Indian treaty rights recognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States' protection. Under a ""trust responsibility"" legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes. That consultation process started before the lawsuit over the delay in payments. A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasn't until May 5 that the Treasury Department said it would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Biden's claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to the Alaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of ""tribal government,"" or ""Indian tribe"" and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at ""a later date"" based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back ""until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved."" The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5 said the judge's April 27 ruling ""led to the (Treasury) Department's announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes."" In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor ""arguably should have produced better results,"" but a court intervention was not warranted. ""'Egregious' delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis,"" U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11 opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was ""lagging unreasonably"" behind in delivering the funds. ""The Secretary has not been 'twiddling his thumbs',"" he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, ""then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today."" Biden said Trump ""took more than a month to allocate Congress' emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued."" It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued." Claim: Joe Biden Says President Donald Trump "took more than a month to allocate Congress' emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued."

Output: 2

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "A new ad by Freedom Partners -- a group that has served as a hub for funding by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch -- recently began airing ads against Democratic Senate candidates, targeting them for their support of President Barack Obama's health care law. The group had been little known until the Washington Post reported in January that Freedom Partners had ""raised $256 million from unknown sources, money that was then transferred to acomplex network of LLCs and political nonprofits that do not disclose their donors."" By airing the new ads against Democratic Senate candidates, it appears that Freedom Partners is ""bringing in-house many of the functions it financed through other groups in the last campaign,"" the Post reported. One of the Freedom Partners ads attacks Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who's running to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. Braley will face one of several potential Republican candidates in a general election that independent observers consider competitive. Here's the full narration of the ad: ""No one likes it when politicians give special favors. Congressman Bruce Braley voted for Obamacare. The government spent millions of taxpayer dollars to promote it. Now, health insurance companies stand to make billions. And Bruce Braley? He takes tens of thousands from his friends in the health insurance industry. For Iowans, it's canceled policies and higher costs. That's not right. Call Bruce Braley. Tell him: Stand with Iowa. Stop supporting Obamacare."" There's a lot to chew on here, but we decided to narrow our focus to the claim that Braley took ""tens of thousands from his friends in the health insurance industry"" and gave them ""special favors"" by voting for Obamacare. Did Braley take ""tens of thousands from his friends in the health insurance industry""? This claim reminded us of the scene from Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery in which Dr. Evil (Mike Meyers) threatens to unleash some horrible threat upon the earth unless he is paid -- pausing for dramatic effect -- ""one million dollars."" His nonplussed advisers gently suggest that he raise the ransom amount, since in today's dollars, $1 million isn't really all that much. In Braley's case, yes -- he took ""tens of thousands"" from the insurance industry. But saying that misses a whole bunch of important context. Braley has accepted a total of $83,500 from individuals and PACs connected to the insurance industry since his first campaign for the House in the 2006 campaign cycle, according to data gleaned from the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent collector of campaign finance information. That includes $24,250 so far during the 2014 campaign cycle. In isolation, this may sound like a lot. But here's the context. First, this is money from the ""insurance"" sector, not necessarily the health insurance sector. Once you strip out car insurance companies, homeowner insurance companies, life insurance companies and the like, the amount is much less. We asked the Center for Responsive Politics to do the stripping for us. Here are the results: Over the last decade, Braley has received a total of $16,000 from health insurance political action committees: $8,500 from Humana, $3,000 from Delta Dental, $2,500 from VSP Holdings and $2,000 from AFLAC. He received an additional $4,500 from eight individual donors employed by a health insurance company, all but one donation smaller than $750. Altogether, this is $20,500 from health insurance sources -- less than a quarter of his take from insurers more generally, and about $2,000 for every year he's served in Congress. ""This is not a lot of money to influence a huge vote like that,"" said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. If we are going to compare Braley to other Senate candidates on an apples-to-apples basis, it's only feasible to use the the Center for Responsive Politics' standard data for ""insurance"" companies. So how does Braley's insurance haul compare to that other lawmakers? Not very impressively. Among all Senate candidates running in 2014, Braley ranks 55th. Since there are just 36 Senate races this year, some of which feature minimal opposition to incumbents, that's pretty low indeed for a sitting House member in a competitive seat to rank 55th. And how big a share of Braley's warchest comes from this broader swath of the insurance industry? Not very big. The insurance industry ranks 19th on the list of biggest sector donors to Braley's campaigns over his entire career. For the 2014 cycle, insurance ranks 16th among all sectors donating to Braley. In all, insurance donations account for less than 1 percent of all the cash Braley has raised during his political career. (The industry that ranks No. 1 -- giving $4,084,645 over the course of Braley's career -- is ""lawyers and law firms."" This connection recently caused a major embarrassment for Braley when he was caught on videotape jabbing Sen. Chuck Grassley, the popular Republican he's seeking to join in the Senate, as ""a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school."" Slate's John Dickerson joked that Braley's farm-state gaffe was so massive ""that the Environmental Protection Agency may seek to regulate it."") Was it a special favor to the health insurance industry to vote for Obamacare? For one thing, it's not as simple as the ad says -- the insurance industry hardly loves every aspect of the law, so it's not clear that voting for it was an undiluted gift for the industry. ""In particular, the medical loss ratio that limits their profits and requires 80 cents on each dollar be spent on insurance recipients keeps their profits from soaring,"" Ornstein said. In addition, it strains logic to think that Braley would have turned from an opponent of the law, or even agnostic about it, to a supporter of it simply because of the desires of donors who collectively gave him a fraction of one percent of his total campaign warchest. It's not as if Braley had built his political career on being a foe of a health care overhaul. Like most Democrats, he supported policies to lower the number of uninsured Americans. During his first campaign for the House in 2006, ""Braley called for expanding health care for the uninsured,"" according to the 2008 edition of the Almanac of American Politics. And in September 2009, when the House health care bill was on its way to the floor, the Des Moines Register reported that Braley said that the often divisive town meetings about health care had only stiffened his resolve. ""You've been out there talking about your values for health care reform and, for some of us, it's made us more dedicated than ever to doing something meaningful about health care reform,"" Braley said, according to the newspaper. Combined, Braley's past promises and pressure from his party are likely to have outweighed any campaign donations from the industry, Ornstein said. The partisan pressure to toe the line on the health care bill was especially strong because it was the No. 1 legislative priority of a president from his own party, and the vote would be decided essentially along party lines. ""Political science scholars have spilled much ink and used countless hours of computer time linking these kinds of ordinary contributions to voting outcomes, and have come up with very little,"" said Burdett Loomis, a University of Kansas political scientist. A final point: If the ad considers donations from the insurance industry to be the linchpin of a politician's support for Obamacare, how can this explain the overall pattern of donations by the insurance industry? As it turns out, nine of the 13 Senate candidates who received the most money from the insurance industry in 2014 are Republicans, a list headed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who received $231,800. Yet despite the backing of the industry, none of these Republicans voted for Obamacare. And what about Braley's fellow Iowan, Grassley? Grassley -- who did not vote for Obamacare -- has received $318,202 from the insurance industry in the 2014 cycle, or about 13 times as much as Braley did over the same period. And the insurance industry's ranking among the industries donating to Grassley? It ranks first. Freedom Partners' argument A spokesman for Freedom Partners, James Davis, said just looking at the size of the donations misses the point. ""What's important to understand is that our ad isn't just about dollar amounts, it's about hypocrisy,"" Davis said. He pointed to an ad by the pro-Braley independent group Senate Majority PAC that said Braley wants to ""hold insurance companies accountable"" and ""knows we can't go back to letting insurance companies deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and kick people off their coverage when they get sick."" (Both were policies outlawed by passage of Obamacare, and which would be at risk of re-emerging after an Obamacare repeal unless specifically protected.) ""The point we're making is: How can Rep. Braley claim he's standing up to health insurance companies, while at the same time taking their campaign donations and supporting Obamacare a huge boon to the health insurance industry?"" Davis said. ""It's not about where he falls in the line of donations it's about saying one thing and doing another."" However, we don't think the use of the phrase ""special favors"" and ""friends in the health insurance industry"" suggests hypocrisy. Rather, it all but suggests that Braley is corrupt, pursuing damaging policies because he gains personally from interested parties. And on that score, the evidence is thin indeed. We asked Freedom Partners if they had any evidence of favors Braley had done for specific companies, but the group did not reply. Our ruling Freedom Partners' ad claims that Braley took ""tens of thousands from his friends in the health insurance industry"" and gave them ""special favors"" by voting for Obamacare. Braley did take tens of thousands of dollars from the insurance industry, though from all types of insurers, not just health insurers. However, Braley, like most Democrats, had campaigned on expanding health coverage to the uninsured, and then, faced with a landmark and highly partisan vote, carried through on his stated intentions. It's ridiculous to suggest that donors who contributed less than 1 percent of his warchest weighed more heavily on his vote than his ideology, his past campaign promises and his partisan affiliation." Claim: "Freedom Partners Says Bruce Braley took ""tens of thousands from his friends in the health insurance industry"" and gave them ""special favors"" by voting for Obamacare."
Output: 0