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 Input:
Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release." Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery

Ex Output:
2

Ex Input:
Paragraph: On Thursday, the United States laid out its objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with Britain, seeking to entirely eliminate or reduce barriers for U.S. agricultural products and streamline regulatory differences. Opponents of Brexit have argued that such a U.S. accord would open up Britain's markets to the likes of chlorine-treated chicken and genetically modified crops, while ministers have said the government would not lower food standards to win trade deals. "You have been presented with a false choice: either stick to EU directives, or find yourselves flooded with American food of the lowest quality," Ambassador Woody Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. "Inflammatory and misleading terms like 'chlorinated chicken' and 'hormone beef' are deployed to cast American farming in the worst possible light. It is time the myths are called out for what they really are: a smear campaign from people with their own protectionist agenda." Johnson said American farmers were using all scientific and technological tools to help meet the challenges of a growing global population and the resulting health and environmental pressures that brought. "It is not sustainable for the whole world to follow the EU's 'Museum of Agriculture' approach. We have to look to the future of farming, not just the past," he said. Johnson said washing chicken was a "public safety no-brainer" and using growth hormones for cattle allowed more meat to be produced at a lower cost to the consumer and environment while being completely safe to eat. "The fact is that farmers in America have the same priorities as farmers in Britain", he said. "It would be a genuine missed opportunity to buy into the idea that the EU's traditionalist approach to agriculture is Britain's only option for a quality and efficient agriculture sector moving forward." In a separate story on Saturday, the Telegraph reported that Britain would follow all EU food and farming regulations for nine months should it exit the bloc without having secured a withdrawal deal to protect British farming. The newspaper said the move sent a signal that the United Kingdom wanted to stay aligned with European and not U.S. agricultural standards. Claim: Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, and Kurt Cobain all died with white Bic lighters in their pockets.

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Democrats savaged the Republican legislation, pushed by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that would replace Obamacare. ""Under 'Trumpcare,'"" U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin declared in a May 4, 2017 news release, ""being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault could be considered pre-existing conditions."" The claim by Moore, who has talked publicly about being a victim of domestic violence and sexual assault herself, cuts to one of the big fears around health care -- that having something that is considered a pre-existing condition means a person has to pay more for insurance, or could be denied coverage altogether. Typically, this refers to things such as diabetes or cancer. But sexual assault or domestic violence? Obamacare vs 'Trumpcare' The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the 2010 legislation adopted under President Barack Obama. It prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage -- or charging higher premiums -- because a person has a pre-existing medical condition. Under the American Health Care Act (sometimes called ""Trumpcare""), insurers would still be prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The bill was narrowly approved by the House of Representatives and could be changed in the Senate. But in its current form, the bill would give states the option to allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher prices. Republicans argue those people would be protected, because those states would have to set up high-risk pools to insure people with pre-existing conditions. But many analysts believe the law would still leave those people more vulnerable to cost increases that could make their plans unaffordable. (The day after the House passed the bill, GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would consider allowing insurers to charge higher prices. But later that day -- in an indication of how politically touchy the issue is -- he backed away from that comment after it drew criticism.) Pre-existing conditions Bloggers claimed that under the GOP bill, sexual assault is a pre-existing condition, which PolitiFact National rated . PolitiFact National spelled out what would happen under the GOP bill regarding sexual assault and experts told us that the same would apply to domestic violence. In a nutshell: The bill does not single out any specific medical event or diagnosis as a pre-existing condition. Conditions stemming from a sexual assault or domestic violence, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or certain sexually transmitted diseases, could be judged to be a pre-existing condition. States would have the option to allow insurers to charge higher prices to people with an existing condition, possibly making coverage unaffordable. Our rating Moore says that ""under 'Trumpcare,'"" the Republican replacement for Obamacare, domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions"" -- something that could trigger higher insurance prices for those victims. Moore's claim goes too far. Simply being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault would not mean a person had a pre-existing condition. But it is important to know that conditions stemming from those assaults, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, could. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is ." Claim: "Under 'Trumpcare,'"" domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions."

Ex Output:
0