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.

Input: Consider Input: Questions about whether the NHS can survive in its present form are the subject of a long-running British debate, given an aging population and increased costs due to advances in medicine and surgery. Following is a timeline of key events spanning its history. Health minister Aneurin Bevan launches the tax-funded NHS to bring medical services together and provide free healthcare to all. Polio and diphtheria vaccines become available to children under 15, leading to a major fall of cases in both diseases. The Mental Health Act recognizes for the first time that patients with mental health issues should be treated the same as those with other types of illnesses. Kick-starting the "Swinging Sixties", the contraceptive pill is made widely available amid a major movement for women's liberation. The number of women on the pill rises from around 50,000 in 1962 to 1 million in 1969. The Abortion Act becomes law, apart from in Northern Ireland, making termination legal up to 28 weeks if it is deemed to be in the best physical and mental interests of the patient. The world's first test-tube baby, a girl called Louise Brown, is born on July 25 thanks to in vitro fertilization. The first advertising campaign in the fight against AIDS uses slogans such as "Don't die of ignorance" to raise awareness. The world's first heart, liver and lung transplant is conducted in Cambridge. Free mammograms are offered in a bid to reduce breast cancer deaths among women over 50. The NHS Organ Donor Register is set up. More than 12 million people register by 2005, according to the NHS. A four-hour target for waiting times in hospital Accident and Emergency departments is made into an operational standard. The Care Quality Commission, a new regulator which will monitor health services, is launched. Junior doctors in England go on their first all-out strike, protesting at government plans for a new employment contract.

Output: Timeline: Britain's National Health Service turns 70.

Input: Consider Input: "On Nov. 27, 2013, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group used a mass email to promote protests that were planned against Walmart stores for two days later -- Black Friday. The demonstrations aimed to ""expose Wal-Mart's shameful labor practices and support workers,"" according to One Wisconsin Now, which then made this claim: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" That reminded us of a March 2011 claim by filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore. He said in a Madison speech that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Based on online hits, it became one of our most popular fact-checks ever. So we wondered about the Walmart claim. Wealth, not income In the days before and after Black Friday, leaders no less prominent than President Barack Obama and Pope Francis decried the extent of income disparity in the United States and around the world. Obama called the growing income gap a ""defining challenge of our time."" The pope said that while the earnings of a minority ""are growing exponentially, so, too, is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."" Walmart, of course, is a big target. According to Forbes, as of May 2013 the international retailer had $469 billion in sales and 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million in the United States. The corporation has been criticized for low wages; and in December 2012, PolitiFact National rated as Mostly a claim that more Walmart employees are on Medicaid and food stamps than other companies. But let's be clear up front: Although income and wealth are related, they're not the same. Wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth -- the value of a person's assets minus liabilities. So, things like savings and retirement accounts, minus what is owed on a home mortgage, credit cards, etc. That means a person with heavy debt can have little wealth, or negative wealth, even while earning a six-figure income. One more point before we get to the wealth figures. Walmart was founded by the late Sam Walton, who opened the first store in Arkansas in 1962. Walmart incorporated in 1969 and became a publicly traded company a year later. So, Wal-Mart is not family owned, but rather owned by its stockholders; on the other hand, according to Bloomberg and other news reports, the Walton family members still have control of the company, owning about half of the shares. Group's evidence Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's executive director, told us his evidence to back his group's claim is a July 2012 article by economist Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the liberal Economics Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. Bivens wrote that in 2010, the wealth of six Walton family heirs was $89.5 billion, 22 percent higher than in 2007. Meanwhile, the median wealth of American families in 2010 was $77,300, nearly 39 percent lower than three years earlier. (Median wealth refers to the American family that is exactly wealthier than half of all families and less wealthy than half.) As for measuring one against the other, Bivens said the Walton family wealth in 2010 was as large as the wealth of the bottom 48.8 million families in the United States, or 41.5 percent of all American families. Rounded up, 41.5 percent would be 42 percent, the figure One Wisconsin Now claims. But let's keep shopping around a little. Similar claim It turns out that a statement nearly identical to the one made by One Wisconsin Now was uttered in July 2012 by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. Sanders said the Walton family owns ""more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America,"" a claim PolitiFact National rated . Our colleagues found that Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, compared the Waltons' cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. That survey was published in August 2012. Allegretto found that the Waltons' wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families. The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population. But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton's descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth: No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion. A note before we close: Allegretto told us the housing crisis is a key reason that the gap between the Walton family wealth and the wealth of other American families has grown. More Americans were left with ""negative wealth"" because they lost their biggest asset -- their home -- and often significant amounts of their savings, as well, she said. Our rating One Wisconsin Now wrote: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" For comparison purposes, the latest data available, for 2010, the figure is 41.5 percent. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website."

Output: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.

Input: Consider Input: Again, no treatment is involved. Speculation about the relative costs of high red meat vs. high white meat diets would not be productive. The reporter does a fair job describing the study and the findings. The article includes such details as size of the study population, the duration of the study and the method of data collection. But, as already discussed, this kind of study can't establish cause-and-effect or risk. Just statistical associations. However, once it started describing risk, it did that incompletely as well. It compaes the relative risk of death by heart disease and cancer in the highest- vs. lowest-red meat consumption groups for both men and women. But the story suffers because it describes the findings only in terms of relative riskmen who ate the most red meat had a 27 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease compared to those who ate the least, for instance. But the story fails to put these percentages into context. In the example above, about 1.2 percent of the men who ate the most red meat died of heart disease during the 10-year study, compared to .06 percent of those who ate the least red meat Looking at male deaths by all causes, about 4 percent of the red meat group died, compared to about 2 percent of the least-red-meat group. Overall, about 13 percent of study participants died during the 10-year study. This is not to suggest the findings are insignificant. But reporters should always include absolute data to help readers understand the size of the risk an individual faces. (But , as already stated, risk language was risky in this story to begin with.) The story focuses plainly on the death risks of the diets studied. However, risks are stated only in relative terms, not in absolute terms. We won't penalize the story for that here, but we do under "quantification of benefits." The report is based on results of a large, prospective epidemiological dietary study. The reporter mentions the important caveats: that the study group may be healthier than the general adult population, and the data is based on self-reports of eating habits, which can be unreliable. We've already commented on the "association does not equal causation" issue, so we won't rule this criterion unsatisfactory for that flaw. Because the story confuses association with causation, it indeed does commit disease-mongering repeatedly. It may frighten readers into thinking that cause-and-effect has been established when, in fact, only a statistical association has been established. For example, the story says: It's a common pitfall of such stories. Association does not equal causation. It's not journalists who get it wrong. Scientists and physicians commonly express this incorrectly. But that doesn't make it acceptable. Most stories we saw on this study stated this incorrectly. The reporter does an excellent job sourcing the story. Sources include The reporter gets extra points for including two industry sources. While their thoughts appear very late in the story, including them both makes the story seemand actually bemore credible. There are no financial conflicts to report. In several places, the article appropiately indicates that limiting red meat in the diet may improve health. The reporter carefully avoids implications that more extreme options, such as a meatless diet, would cut death risk more. This is a study of subjects' voluntary diets, so no "treatment" is involved. The story makes no claims for the novelty of this kind of research or this general finding. In the second paragraph the report states that these findings "bolster[s] prior evidence" about the risks of diets high in red meat. Given the number of sources cited, the story does not appear to rely on the Archives of Internal Medicine press release or any other news release.
Output: Study: Lots of red meat increases mortality risk