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 Q]: Paragraph: Attorney and Democratic state Sen. Jacob Candelaria recently filed a lawsuit in state district court on behalf of Joe Montano, who said authorities recently seized his medical cannabis, KOAT-TV reports. According to court documents, correctional officers searched Montano's home while he was on house arrest, found the marijuana, and put him in jail for a month as punishment. The petition is seeking a judge to order the jail to allow him to possess and use his medical marijuana. State lawmakers passed a measure last year to allow people on house arrest to use medical marijuana. In a statement, Metropolitan Detention Center Chief of Corrections Ralph Fernadez said Community Custody Program inmates are considered in jail custody, and medical marijuana use is prohibited in the detention center. Claim: New Mexico man in house arrest sues to use medical marijuana.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: As the criminal case moves toward possible trial this year, related pending lawsuits reflect a battle over blame. A look at where things stand: THE ALLEGATIONS The Columbus-area Mount Carmel Health System determined William Husel ordered excessive doses for nearly three dozen patients over several years, though it said the doses likely weren't what caused six of those deaths. Reviewers found that in many cases, the drugs were accessed by overriding a dispensing system. Husel was fired in December 2018, weeks after a concern was raised. Mount Carmel later said three patients died during those weeks after receiving excessive doses he ordered. ___ CRIMINAL CASE Last June, Husel was charged with murder in 25 deaths and pleaded not guilty in one of the biggest cases of its kind ever brought against a U.S. health care professional. He was charged only in cases involving 500 to 2,000 micrograms of the powerful painkiller fentanyl doses so unusually large that prosecutors said it indicated an intent to snuff out lives. His initial lawyer said Husel was providing comfort care to dying patients, not trying to kill them. Husel's current lawyers in the criminal case including Florida-based Jose Baez, who is known for successfully defending high-profile clients such as Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez haven't said much publicly about his motives. Husel's lawyers in civil cases contend that he provided appropriate care and that Mount Carmel misled the public about what happened. Mount Carmel publicly apologized, tightened its drug policies, fired other employees and changed leadership but has stood by its investigation and subsequent decisions. "There is nothing more important to us than our patients' safety and their trust in us and we will do everything in our power to continue to improve," it said in an emailed statement Tuesday. Trial for Husel, 44, is currently scheduled for June. _____ LOTS OF LAWSUITS More than 30 lawsuits have been filed against Mount Carmel in the matter, and it has agreed to more than $13 million in related settlements so far. Husel and Mount Carmel unsuccessfully argued the remaining lawsuits should be put on hold until the criminal case is resolved. Husel also has filed lawsuits. One against Mount Carmel and its parent company, Michigan-based Trinity Health, alleges defamation. Another against Trinity and its insurer seeks to force them to cover costs of his defense in the criminal case, just as in civil cases against him. _____ FORMER COLLEAGUES Authorities aren't prosecuting those who administered the drugs, though they have faced other fallout. Mount Carmel said it fired 23 nurses, pharmacists and managers after its internal investigation. Ten of Husel's former colleagues recently sued Mount Carmel for defamation and, in some cases, wrongful termination. The group of mostly nurses decried a " false narrative of an evil rogue doctor and his complicit staff" and said the spread of that narrative damaged their lives and livelihoods regardless of whether they were fired. Three pharmacists and 25 nurses still face potential disciplinary action from their respective state boards and have administrative hearings scheduled in the coming months. Husel is in line for one, too, after the Ohio State Medical Board suspended his license. It hadn't previously disciplined him. ___ Follow Franko on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/kantele10. Claim: Amid doc's murder case, lawsuits reflect battle over blame.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography & false-positive recalls & biopsies were not included in the study, readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography & biopsies increase patient financial costs. This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating "Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a false alarm, a new study shows." Unfortunately the writer doesn't quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction. Instead, the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn't be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled. Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms & false-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually. Part of the continuing controversyover screening mammographyfocuses onannual versus biennial screening. Because thisstudy showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled & needing biopsies among women who are screenedevery other year, with nostatistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer, the article shouldhave emphasized those important findings. The piece states that the researchers noted that "false positive recalls may cause inconvenience & anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring." This article fails to include several important facts about the study. 1) This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006. 2) Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital. 3) Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period. 4) Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms. There was no disease mongering. No independent experts were quoted. The story did an adequate job comparing at a very high level annual screening versus biennial screening. Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States. The study did not examine a new procedure. There's no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release. Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives
[EX A]:
1