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.

Example Input: "Don't mess with Charlie Crist when it comes to open government. It was Crist, as Florida governor, who created something called the Office for Open Government. And we've heard stories of the governor himself ordering agency heads to hand over public records requested by nosy reporters. Now Crist is taking up the cause of the nation's people in a debate over transparency when it comes to the health care reform bill. ""It seems that a bill that was crafted in a closed-door, backroom meeting in the White House will end the same way,"" Crist, who is running for U.S. Senate, said in a statement released Jan. 5, 2010. ""President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout this process, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi have only aided in the secrecy with sweetheart deals and dead of the night votes."" Crist is claiming that Obama broke a promise when it comes to transparency and health care reform. Lucky for us, we have this thing at PolitiFact called the Obameter , where we are tracking Obama's more than 500 campaign promises. If you'll now turn to Promise No. 517 . To achieve health care reform, Obama said in August 2008, ""I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."" If it only happened ... While the Senate and House floor debates have been televised on C-SPAN, negotiations have almost always been away from television cameras. ABC's Jake Tapper put the discrepancy in front of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs this week, to see if the final negotiations between the House, the Senate and the president would be televised. ""There have been a countless number of public hearings,"" Gibbs said. ""The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1 and 2 in the morning on C-SPAN ... I think what the president promised and pledged was so that you could see who was fighting for their constituents and who was fighting for drug and insurance companies."" But, Tapper pressed, the president was talking about negotiations, not votes -- which would hardly be a campaign promise since they would have been televised regardless. ""Well, but the bill gets put together on the floor of the Senate,"" Gibbs said. ""That's where the bill got augmented. And I think if you watched that debate ... you'd have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing."" Despite the action on the House and Senate floors, most of the serious negotiations on the health care bill have been done in the same fashion as other major initiatives in the past -- behind closed doors. From negotiations with the drug companies and health care interests to final assembly of the delicate compromise on abortion, the bulk of the big deliberations and discussions have occurred out of the public eye. The debate over the resulting bill may have been on C-SPAN as Gibbs claims, but the real sausagemaking took place in a private kitchen. 517 a Promise Broken. On top of that, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to House and Senate leaders last week inviting negotiations on the channel. ""President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system,"" Lamb wrote. ""Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."" Obama promised an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he has failed to deliver. When Crist says ""President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout this process,"" he's right."
Example Output: President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout (health care reform negotiations).

Example Input: The story doesn't mention cost at all. Since Lucentis can cost $2,000 per injection, that's a significant oversight. It would also be useful to tell readers how Lucentis injections compare with the cost of laser treatment. The benefits are, for the most part, reasonably well explained. But those explanations lack numbers to back them up and are overstated in at least one place. "One benefit discussed in the release is that study participants who received laser treatment were more likely to suffer peripheral vision loss than participants who were treated solely with Lucentis although this isn't quantified. A second benefit was that participants who received laser treatment were more likely to require subsequent surgery to remove blood from the eye and this was quantified. But the release pushes things a bit when it comes to vision, or visual acuity. The release states: "At two years, vision in the Lucentis group improved by an average of about half a line on an eye chart, compared with virtually no change in the laser group." But here's how the journal article puts it: "There was no statistically significant visual acuity difference between the ranibizumab and PRP [laser] groups at 2 years. The language in the journal article itself stresses that what was being evaluated was whether Lucentis was at least as good as laser treatment and they found that, after two years, the visual acuity of patients who took Lucentis (and had no laser treatment) was as good as patients who had the laser treatment. The release could have simply stated this and avoided confusion. In short, this was a close one but the lack of numbers on peripheral vision and the overstatement of the visual acuity results make this a "Not Satisfactory." The release mentions that one study volunteer in the Lucentis group developed an eye infection and stated that "serious systemic adverse events," namely cardiac arrest and stroke, occurred at similar rates among the two groups undergoing the two different procedures. We'll rate that satisfactory for the disclosure although the release might have gone even further by mentioning the other side effects named in the study including inflammation and elevated intraocular pressure which occurred in both treatment groups. The release does a good job of describing the study design, the number of participants, and the fact that this was a randomized clinical trial. A few words about the limitations of the study e.g. the investigators and patients could not be masked to which treatment they were getting, would have be useful as well. No disease mongering here. The release does tell readers that the study was funded by the National Eye Institute. However, it does not make clear that Lloyd Paul Aiello who is quoted in the release was also a co-author of the journal article. The release also fails to mention that several co-authors receive research funding or consulting fees from Genentech, which developed ranibizumab and markets it in the U.S., and Novartis, which markets the drug outside the U.S. The release does a good job of comparing Lucentis to conventional laser treatment for PDR and we'll award a Satisfactory rating on that basis. However, we'd note that these are not necessarily the only two options. Lucentis is classed as an "anti-VEGF" (anti- vascular endothelial growth factor) drug by blocking a protein called VEGF, the drug can reverse abnormal blood vessel growth and decrease fluid in the retina. Other drugs in this category include Avastin and Eylea. Are those drugs under consideration for trials related to PDR treatment? If so, it's worth mentioning particularly since Avastin costs around $60 per dose, as compared to Lucentis's $2,000 per dose. The release notes that Lucentis is already used to treat other diabetes-related eye problems, and "should be considered a viable treatment option for people with PDR." The clinical trial at issue here appears to be the first to look at the use of Lucentis as a treatment for PDR, particularly in a randomized study with direct comparison to laser treatment. However, the release doesn't tell readers that. On the other hand, the release does make clear that this is the first significant advance in clinical treatment for PDR since the 1970s that's good context. The release does a good job of avoiding hype and explaining what was a complex study.
Example Output: Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Example Input: "I hope that this is the last of it," Rogers City Superintendent Nick Hein told The Alpena News. Bad weather hasn't scratched classes this year in Rogers City, which is along Lake Huron, 60 miles southeast of the Mackinac Bridge. But illness is another story. The district has roughly 510 students. A quarter of them were out Friday. "My school nurse has confirmed the majority of it was the flu," Hein said of students who were absent. District Health Department No. 4 said flu has been widespread for five to six weeks in the northeastern Lower Peninsula.
Example Output:
Snow day? No, it's illness _ again _ in school district.