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.

[Q]: They said the same goes for products like egg salad that contain hard-boiled eggs. Seven people in five states have been reported ill so far, including someone who died in Texas, officials said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said peeled, hard-boiled eggs sold in bulk by Almark Foods are the outbreak's likely source. The eggs were sold to retailers and food service operators in plastic pails and could be used in products like salads. The CDC said retailers and food service operators should wash and sanitize any surfaces that may have come in contact with the eggs or packaging, since listeria can spread easily. The warning does not apply to Almark's hard-boiled eggs sold directly to consumers. Nor does it apply to eggs hard-boiled at home or in restaurants and stores. The CDC also said people at higher risk for listeria should confirm whether a store or restaurant is using Almark's eggs before buying or ordering products with hard-boiled eggs. If the store or restaurant does not know, officials say not to buy the product. Pregnant women and people with cancer are 10 times more likely than others to get a listeria infection, while people on dialysis are 50 times more likely, the agency said. People who are 65 and older are four times more likely. A person who answered the phone at Almark Foods in Gainesville, Georgia, said the company did not have any comment. The company has four manufacturing facilities and delivers nationwide, according to its website. In a letter to the FDA in August, Almark said it had taken corrective actions after two swabs taken by the agency in February at its facility tested positive for listeria.
[A]: Food poisoninglinked to hard-boiled eggs in food service.

[Q]: As the 2016 school year and the election primary cycles wound to a close in California, they inevitably congealed into political brouhahas that entangled even young students. One such controversy involved the case of third-grader Logan Autry and his "Make America Great Again" hat: Third-grader Logan Autry, 9, said officials at Powers-Ginsburg Elementary School in Fresno told him to remove his "Make America Great Again" hat because it could stir "negative emotions" in other children. The red baseball cap with the phrase printed in white capital letters has become almost synonymous with the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. "The principal told me to take it off, and I still didn't take it off," Autry [said]. "And she said it was against the dress code to wear the hat, but I looked in the dress code and it was not against it." The Fresno Unified School District'sdress codes for the 2015-2016 school year are fairly easy to track down online, and they haven't changed much (if at all) from those of previous years: Any apparel, hair style, cosmetic or jewelry, even if not specifically mentioned below, which creates a safety concern, draws undue attention to the wearer, or tends to distract from the educational process is prohibited unless addressed elsewhere in this regulation. Additionally, the following items are specifically prohibited: What many stories didn't mention was that Logan Autry wore the hat for several days before the school, seeing it as a potential distraction, intervened and told him to remove it: Our job as educators is to facilitate a safe learning environment where we encourage robust conversations of diverse and thoughts. We are proud that in this case, our school achieved that goal by allowing the student to wear his hat for several days. However, it is also our responsibility to take precautions when the discourse begins to impact our school climate and interrupt school operations. Logan told reporters that wearing the hat at school is his First Amendment right. However, the right to free speech is interpreted (by courts and others) somewhat differently in public schools than outside them. The National Coalition Against Censorship has a rundown of how the First Amendment is interpreted within the classroom: Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it clear thatthe right to free speech and expression can sometimes be subordinated to achieve legitimate educational goals. (See discussions of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District v. Fraser.) A school is not comparable to a public park where anyone can stand on a soapbox, or a bulletin board on which anyone can post a notice. While students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines), speech is not quite as free inside educational institutions as outside. This does not mean that students and teachers have no First Amendment rights at school. Quite the contrary. But within the educational setting, the right to free speech is implemented in ways that do not interfere with schools' educational mission. Students cannot claim, for instance, that they have the right to have incorrect answers to an algebra quiz accepted as correct, nor can teachers claim a right to teach anything they choose. Other quotes from Logan present a fuller picture of the third-grader's political views: He already has the shirt and tie down, and practices speeches about Trump on the playground. "I've told them his policies on illegal immigration, and our second amendment, and our first amendment and all of our amendments that need to be protected which are not going to be an amendment at all if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets elected," said Autry.
[A]: An elementary school in Fresno, California, forced a third-grader to remove a cap bearing Donald Trump's campaign slogan.

[Q]: Although the story mentions the high upfront cost of proton therapy, it does not describe the cost of treatment compared to other alternatives. Thestory points out that there have been no controlled treatment trials for proton therapy inprostate cancerincreasingly the targeted useso there really are no good data on benefits. Since the technology is relatively new there are probably no good long-term survival estimates even from case series. The story mentions side effects of proton therapy, such as incontinence andsexual side effects in men with prostate cancer, and explains that they may be more common than reported in studies. The story mentions that there is a lack of randomized trials comparing proton therapy to conventional radiation. The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering. However, the article doesn't indicate that many of the 186,320 new prostate cancer cases are early-stage for which the benefit of any treatmentlet alone proton beamremains uncertain. The story quotes multiple experts who provide meaningful perspectives on the value of proton therapy. The story mentions conventional radiationand surgery as the alternatives to proton therapy. The story accurately describes the limited availability of proton therapy. The story accurately describes the novelty of proton therapy. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
[A]:
The promise of proton-beam therapy