You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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'.

Paragraph: In such a short piece, discussions of cost are almost always missing, but they were missing as well in the competing WSJ article. The CBS story says that the study "looked" at eight women. But this is an incomplete description. The study involved125,426 samples from which abnormal results (typically indicating a chromosomal disorder in the fetus) were detected in3757 (3%). Ten cancers were subsequently identified in women whose babies were found to be normal despite an abnormal test result, with further analysis done on the eight women mentioned in the story. Without thisquantitative data, readers have no sense of the rarity of the eight cases described or of the scope of the benefit that might be realized if such testing were offered more widely. Unlike the WSJ article, there was not even a hint that widespread use of these tests might pose harms as well as benefits, as well as higher costs and ethical dilemmas. The story focuses on the serious impact of the test on a woman's life and on her ability to "be there" for her child as she battles her cancer. In the sense that this story was more about the potential life-saving aspect of the study for women with hidden cancers, it provides useful information. But so much copy spent on telling the woman's story meant less space to provide all-important context. Nothing on the study's strengths or limitations or what the research means more broadly. For example: Non-invasive prenatal testing is a new kind of screening test that is sometimes offered to women over 35 or at risk for a child with Down syndrome. About 3% of women screened have an abnormal result suggesting a fetal abnormality. This was the first large-scale study to confirm that in a small number of such cases, the abnormal test result is caused instead by an undiagnosed cancer in the mother. The story focuses on an individual woman's story, and provides no perspective on the rarity of her case. Although it may be an underestimate, cancer was reported in only0.008% of the samples analyzed. The story needed some acknowledgment that this is an exceedingly rare occurrence. The story noted that the study was funded by the manufacturer of the test and that the study author quoted has a relationship with the company. That's useful context, but we require an independent voice to meet our standard on this criterion. No one was quoted except one of the study's authors. No alternatives to the blood tests were mentioned in any context. The WSJ story, by contrast, notes that the blood tests are now used in place of more invasive amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling to identify fetuses at risk. The WSJ also underscores the importance of having a positive blood test confirmed with one of these more invasive tests. Not undergoing testing at all might also be an option, but the story does not address this. Although the availability of these new tests is not specifically addressed, the story does note that "prenatal testing is widely used for pregnant women at risk of having babies with chromosome disorders" implying that the new tests are one such option. We'll award a Satisfactory on that basis. The story could also have noted that the new test are recommended by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology for some women. Usually they are offered for women over 35 or with other risk factors for a fetus with Down syndrome or certain other chromosomal abnormalities. The story establishes what is new here and made reference to the research done at Tufts and reported in JAMA. The story may have been suggested by a release, but clearly focused almost entirely on interviews with a mother and the principal investigator. Claim: Prenatal testing can detect cancer in pregnant mothers
Output:
0