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.

[EX Q]: "Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costsanomissionwhich perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn't resist it. We can understand whymarketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don't think it's agood way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we're not really anywhere close tobeing able to replicate what the normal human pancreasdoes through artificial technology. Forgetting for a momentthat the pancreas does much morethan simply dispense insulin (it alsoproduces a number of other hormones anddigestive enzymes that aren't impacted by diabetes),what's more important is how the pancreas worksin concert withthe brain and other systems to regulateglucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasinginsulin beforewe eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need tobe told thatmeal is coming or react to therise in glucose after thefact. Plus,insulinproduced by the bodystarts acting rightaway, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to takeeffect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predictpost-mealinsulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it's not at all clear that such a systemwill improve overall bloodsugar management compared with existing methods. The term""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This isoverselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hintthat an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn't until the last sentence thatwe learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult itwill befor any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosingis affected byfactorsranging from how much aperson has exercised to whatand how much they have eaten. It's conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables,but there are a lot ways thingscould go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It's a close call, butwe don't feel thestorydid enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which allled readersto believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted thatthe insulin was dispensed by a nurse based oncalculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucosemonitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition,the Times story wasthe only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This noteofcaution was completely lacking from the competingcoverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotesfrom interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had theyincluded one more source who didn't have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental""and said that it was ""notfully automated."" It said that a fullyautomated glucose monitor/insulindelivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have beenmore discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such asthe newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."
[EX A]: Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices

[EX Q]: Africa had until now largely been spared the rapid spread of COVID-19, which has infected at least 135,000 people and killed around 5,000 worldwide. Most of Africa's reported cases were foreigners or people who had traveled abroad. Rapid testing and quarantines have been put in place to limit transmission. But concerns are growing about the continent's ability to handle the disease. Cases have been reported in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia. Mauritania's health ministry said late on Friday that its first coronavirus patient is a European man - nationality not specified - who had returned to Nouakchott on March 9 and had since been in quarantine. The numbers of cases in most of the countries are still in single figures. Senegal confirmed 11 new cases on Friday, raising the total in that West African nation to 21. Its health ministry said 16 had been infected by the same man who had returned from Italy. Among those confirming first cases on Friday, Kenya is the richest economy in East Africa and a hub for global companies and the United Nations, while Ethiopia is Africa's second-most populous nation, with 109 million people. Addis Ababa and Nairobi are regional transit hubs. In Nairobi, the Kenyan authorities banned all major public events and said they would restrict foreign travel. The mayor of Addis Ababa urged citizens to avoid close personal contact but Ethiopia's health minister said there were no plans to cancel flights. Kenyan Health Minister Mutahi Kagwe said the country's first case, a 27-year-old Kenyan, was diagnosed on Thursday after traveling home via London on March 5. He said the government had traced most of the people she had been in contact with, including fellow passengers on her flight, and a government response team would monitor their temperatures for the next two weeks. The Ethiopian case was a 48-year old Japanese national who arrived in Ethiopia on March 4, the health ministry said. Guinea's first case was an employee of the European Union delegation who had self-isolated after she felt ill upon returning from Europe, the EU delegation said. Sudan's first confirmed coronavirus case was a man who died on Thursday in the Sudanese capital Khartoum, the Health Ministry said. He had visited the United Arab Emirates in the first week of March. Kenyan Health Minister Mutahi Kagwe said the government had suspended all public gatherings, sporting events, open-air religious meetings and events "of a huge public nature". Schools will remain open but inter-school events were suspended. Public transport operators must install hand sanitizers in their vehicles and clean them regularly, Kagwe said, while foreign travel would be restricted. Soon after the announcement, shoppers in one Nairobi supermarket were buying up cart loads of staples such as maize flour and water, as well as hand sanitizers and soap. Kenya Airways suspended flights to China last month and on Thursday added Rome and Geneva to the list of suspended destinations. Kenya, which relies heavily on Asian imports, has seen disruptions to its supply chain and a decline in tourism, an important source of hard currency and jobs. "We are going to be hit badly," Tourism Minister Najib Balala told journalists. The Nairobi Securities Exchange halted trading in the afternoon after the main NSE 20 share index dropped by more than 5% following the news. Mauritius, an island nation off the coast of East Africa whose economy depends on tourism and financial services, has yet to report any COVID-19 cases but said it was offering liquidity to banks to support struggling firms hit by the impact of the virus and cutting banks' cash reserve requirements.
[EX A]: Kenya, Ethiopia join expanding list of African states with coronavirus.

[EX Q]: "One theme Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly touched on during his run for the Democratic nomination for president has been the high cost of prescription drugs. His comment during the Feb. 11 Democratic debate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was typical as he rattled off a list of problems with the U.S. health care system: ""In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs."" We asked the Sanders campaign for the source of his claim. We didn't get a response. So we searched on our own. One organization that tracks such things is the International Federation of Health Plans, based in London. Their latest price report, from 2013, lists eight common drugs. Compared with England, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Canada, U.S. prices were far higher, sometimes dramatically so. Consider Nexium, the medicine widely used to treat acid reflux. A prescription that would cost $60 or less in other countries costs, on average, $215 in the United States. And that's just the average. Prices vary widely in this country: In 5 percent of the cases, the cost was $395. ""What Bernie says is true. There's nowhere that pays the same price as America,"" said Tom Sackville, the federation's CEO. In addition, ""there is this huge variation in price across America. Anything above the average is quite unjustified. When you get up to the 95th percentile, you're talking grand robbery."" The findings were similar in an April 2013 study published in the journal Health Affairs, which looked at the prices of brand name drugs in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, France, Canada and Australia. In each of the three years studied -- 2005, 2007 and 2010 -- U.S. prices were consistently higher. The one exception: Switzerland. In addition, researchers found that, between 2005 and 2010, ""the gap between the United States and other countries seemed to widen."" And it wasn't just new drugs being embraced first in the United States that was driving up costs. They concluded that ""prices for older products rose faster in the United States than in other countries."" But Joel Farley of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Eshelman School of Pharmacy cautioned that the rule doesn't always apply to generic drugs. A 2008 comparison of 19 generic drugs found that some U.S. prices were lower than Canadian prices. ""In some cases it has to do with availability,"" he said. In other cases, a country may set the drug price low and in that fixed-price market ""there's no incentive to go lower."" The Wall Street Journal published an analysis in December that concluded 98 percent of 40 top branded drugs were more expensive in the United States than in England. In Norway, 93 percent of the 40 top branded drugs cost lessthan in the United States. And in Ontario, a comparison of 30 drugs showed that U.S. prices were also higher for 93 percent of the products. Why are the brand name prices so much lower in other countries, and why is there so much variation in the United States? Big customers can negotiate big discounts. So the countries with socialized medicine have a lot of leverage at the negotiating table, the experts told us. In the United States, hospitals, wholesalers and insurance companies all do their own negotiations. The Veterans Administration can -- and does -- negotiate dramatically lower prices. Under Medicaid, the drug companies are required to provide their medicines at a price that's as low as it is for any of their regular customers. But Medicare has been prohibited by law from negotiating lower prices since 2006, and that's a huge chunk of the U.S. health care industry. (When Barack Obama was first running for president, he promised to repeal that Bush-era restriction, but then backed off in an attempt to get passage of the Affordable Care Act.) The pharmaceutical industry says it needs the extra income to pay for research to keep new, desperately needed drugs coming. But with everyone getting a bargain, Americans are financing that research for the rest of the world, experts told us. Yet there's another way to look at the issue, said Amitava Dasgupta, a clinical toxicologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The tablet that costs a dollar in the United States may only cost 20 cents in India, but that drug is far more expensive to the average person in India because their income is so much lower. ""The U.S. subsidizes research for the world,"" he said. ""But I would look at that as philanthropy."" Our ruling Sanders said, ""In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs."" When it comes to brand-name drugs, which yield the highest profit for the pharmaceutical industry, studies support Sanders' claim -- although not always on a drug-by-drug basis. In addition, the differences in price can be dramatic because the U.S. health care system is so splintered, and Medicare is prohibited by law from using its market share to bargain for lower prices. We found one study comparing the United States and Canada that found exceptions for generic drugs, where the profit margin is much lower and which make up a much smaller share of prescription drug spending. But on balance,"
[EX A]:
In America, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.