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: "On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League's evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there's evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don't, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it's possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach."

Output: A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.

Input: Consider Input: "Liquid chocolate is prepared in the workshop of the ""Felicitas"" chocolate shop in Hornow, south of Berlin, December 2, 2009. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch The study, which combined the results of 42 smaller studies and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also found that participants had small improvements in blood vessel function and a dip in their insulin levels. A number of past studies have found that chocolate lovers seem to have lower rates of certain heart risks, such as high blood pressure. "My take-away message would be that if people like dark chocolate, then eating a little in place of other 'treat' foods is fine, and may be beneficial," said study leader Lee Hooper, at Norwich Medical School in the UK. "However, the evidence is not yet good enough to suggest that we should all be doing this." She cautioned that the studies involved were neither large enough nor long enough to show whether eating chocolate has any effect on a person's risk of having a heart attack or stroke. In contrast to past studies, which were largely observational and couldn't prove cause-and-effect that chocolate itself caused the changes the current study focused on clinical trials, where researchers assigned people to eat chocolate or not and then watched for changes in blood pressure, cholesterol and other heart risk factors. Hooper and her team pooled data from 42 small clinical trials involving about 1,300 people and found that chocolate eaters had a few points knocked off their blood pressure readings, along with lower insulin levels and other benefits. Though it's not clear why chocolate has this affect, it's believed to be due to compounds known as flavonoids, which are also present in foods such as nuts, soy, tea and wine. But researchers acknowledged shortcomings in their study, including differences in the people involved in the trials some healthy, some with chronic health problems and different ways of testing chocolate's effects. Some studies used cocoa drinks, some solid chocolate and some cocoa supplements. They also varied in how long people were "treated," though most trials lasted less than six weeks. The biggest question may be whether any benefits would be worth the downside of chocolate. Based on the studies they used, Hooper's team writes, it could take several hundred calories' worth of chocolate to see effects on insulin and blood vessel function and that could mean trouble for your waistline. "From a practical perspective it is premature to advise individuals to consume chocolate or cocoa to decrease their risk of cardiovascular disease," said Alice Lichtenstein, director of the cardiovascular nutrition lab at Tufts University in Boston, who was not part of the study. For now, she added, if you enjoy a little chocolate in your life, you can probably keep doing so. Just don't add it in the hopes of helping your heart."

Output: Chocolate may be good for your heart: study.

Input: Consider Input: The story does a good job of describing the costs of angiopasty compared to a stress test. The story could have discussed out of pocket costs for patients. The story could have quantified the benefit of stress testing in its ability to avoid angiography and angioplasty associated with it. The story mentions missing cases of heart disease and difficulties of performing the test in older patients as potentional harms of stress testing, but there are other harms that the story should have mentioned. The story adequately describes the design of the current study and points out some important caveats inherent in a database-based study. The story does not exagerrate the seriousness or prevalence of stable heart disease. The story quotes multiple sources. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to stress testing. The story could have done more to describe the pros and cons of angiography compared to stress testing. Clearly stress tests are available. Clearly stress testing is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Output: More stress tests needed before angioplasties, study says