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'.

Example Input: Paragraph: The state health department said Friday the case was confirmed in a man over 50 from West Warwick. It's the first human case in Rhode Island since 2010. State environmental officials said Thursday a six-month-old horse tested positive for the virus in Westerly. Mosquitoes carrying the disease have been found in Westerly and Central Falls. Ana Novais, the health department's deputy director, says there's a high risk for transmission of the disease to humans through mosquito bites. She recommends taking extra precautions to prevent bites. In neighboring Massachusetts, there have been four confirmed human cases of the virus this year, one of them fatal. The virus can cause brain infections. Claim: Man in Rhode Island tests positive for rare equine virus.
Example Output: 2

Example Input: Paragraph: Cost wasn't mentioned, but given that this is light activity, we'll rate this N//A. Still, the story could have explicitly said that the activities that are highlighted in this study probably have no cost associated with them. The story notes that engaging in light activity for 30 minutes per day reduced relative risk of mortality during the study period by 12 percent. It also noted that engaging in moderate activity for 30 minutes per day reduced that risk by 39 percent. But what about the absolute risk reduction? As the NIH has noted, the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the risks. For that reason, we won't ding this story for not going into details regarding the risks associated with light physical activity. Nonetheless, it would have been nice to see the story mention that older adults may want to consult with a health professional to determine what types of activity they should (or should not) engage in. The story does briefly point out that this type of study can't prove cause and effect, though it quickly pivoted to a "however" to weaken that point. A limitation that should have made it into the news story is that individuals weren't assigned a level of activityrather they presumably went about their usual activities for a week (just a week) and the device captured it. The authors then categorized individuals into three categories of increasing level of activity. The challenge is that people who are less active, may be that way for a reason. Maybe they are sick, or have other issues that make them less active. And that might have been a temporary problem. This helps readers understand why the study can't prove cause and effect. There's really no disease mongering here, though there is one note we'd like to make that falls under this heading as well as anywhere. The story tells readers that increased physical activity is "linked to a lower risk of death." Reader, we have bad newsdeath is inevitable. It would be more accurate to note that physical activity reduced the relative risk of dying during a given timeframe (in this case, the three-year period of observation). No outside sources are cited in the story, nor does the story make clear who funded the research (addressing potential conflicts of interest). The study compared different levels of physical activity. As such, it was comparative. However, there are other important lifestyle habits that affect mortality (cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol, for instance), and it would be interesting to know how helpful light activity is compared to these other lifestyle modifications. The story does a good job of defining what light activity means, which is important for understanding how accessible it is. Bike riding is a moderate activity, for example, whereas "strolling around the neighborhood" is a light activity. The story refers to national guidelines and some (nonspecific) "recent analyses," noting that the "new study refutes that research." But is this the first study to show benefits like these from engaging in low-intensity daily activities? No. For example, this 2014 study published in Preventive Medicine examined "examine[d] the association between household physical activity and all-cause mortality in a cohort of older adults from Spain." The study relied on self-reporting from study participants, but found that among other things "Household physical activity may have benefits for longer survival in older women." It would have been interesting to see the article look at how the new study compared to the 2014 study. Do the findings support each other? How do they differ? This sort of context would be valuable for readers. What does appear novel is the use of a device to assess activityversus recording what people report as their activity levels. This is borderline. The story maps very closely to the news release. However, the story appears to incorporate quotes from study author Andrea LaCroix that are not found in the news release. Claim: Want to Live Longer? Every Movement Counts, Even Cleaning the House
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: "At the first Democratic debate of the 2016 presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for supporting a 2005 law that shields the gun industry from certain lawsuits. Clinton voted against this law when she was a senator, and she has lambasted it several times on the campaign trail this month. ""Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability,"" she said in Iowa Oct. 7. ""They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."" Is Clinton right? Are gun makers and dealers ""wholly protected"" against any kind of lawsuit, and do no other industries have similar immunities? Short answer: No. The gun industry is susceptible to some lawsuits, and there are federal laws restricting liability for a number of other types of businesses. As support, Clinton's staff sent us a public health journal article that argues the gun industry's ""broad immunity"" against litigation inhibits safe manufacturing and distribution of firearms, though it does not directly address her claim. Exceptions The law at issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and seen as a victory for gun rights advocates. The purpose of the law is to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits when their products are misused. For example, if a person buys a gun legally and then uses the gun to intentionally kill someone, the gun dealer and manufacturer cannot be held liable for the crime under the law. While opponents argue that the law stops some victims from having their day in court, supporters say the law protects gun dealers and manufacturers from frivolous and expensive legal proceedings. In any case, Clinton goes too far in saying the gun industry is ""wholly protected from any kind of liability."" The law lists several situations that are not protected from liability. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective. ""The statement is incorrect insofar as it suggests that gun makers are totally free from liability,"" said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who specializes in gun law. Some opponents of the law argue that the liability protection is so broad and ambiguous, and the exceptions so narrow, that some legitimate lawsuits won't have a chance to appear in court. But this is different from saying the gun industry is wholly immune to all lawsuits. Clinton also said the gun industry is the ""only"" business in America with this total liability protection. We know that it doesn't have total protection, but do other sectors have something similar? Not the only one The act ""is not the first federal law to grant a particular industry immunity from tort liability,"" said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, who edited a book on gun industry litigation. Possibly the most analogous rule -- in that it protects a specific group of potential defendants from a specific liability theory -- is one that offers some immunity to online service providers, said John Goldberg, a law professor at Harvard University and an expert in tort law, in an email to PolitiFact. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks victims of online defamation from suing service providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like YouTube) for failing to monitor or remove defamatory posts uploaded by customers. In a prior interview with NPR, Goldberg called the gun industry law particularly ""aggressive"" in terms of the liability protections granted. Most of the experts we surveyed also mentioned a vaccine manufacturer liability law passed in the 1980s. Under the law, victims of injuries that they say were caused by defective vaccines are not allowed to sue vaccine manufacturers. This differs from the gun legislation, however, because it established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, through which alleged victims can make a claim and receive compensation. ""By contrast, (the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) simply prohibits certain kinds of tort claims against the gun industry without providing plaintiffs any alternative means of pursuing their claims,"" Lytton said. There's also some liability protection in the medical devices and airline industries, noted Walter Olson, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and expert in tort law. For example,the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act said small aircraft manufacturers cannot be sued for accidents involving aircraft more than 18 years old. ""It's not at all unique to the gun industry. It's a version (of liability law) Congress developed for an industry that was under very heavy attack,"" Olson said, referring to the slew of litigation against gun sellers and makers that prompted Congress to pass the law. Our ruling Clinton said the gun industry is ""the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."" Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits. Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry." Claim: "The gun industry is""the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."
Example Output:
0