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 Q]: Paragraph: About 1.3 million people worldwide died of TB in 2017. A further 300,000 people with both HIV and TB died in last year, according to World Health Organization figures released this month. Once referred to as 'consumption' because of the way sufferers appear to waste away, tuberculosis has been known for centuries. The bacterium responsible for TB was discovered 136 years ago and the development of an effective antibiotic helped rich countries to largely contain the disease after World War II. Still, the U.N. health agency estimates that about 10 million people worldwide become newly infected with TB each year, mostly in poor countries where access to health care is limited. "It really is a global epidemic," said Dr. Tereza Kasaeva, who heads WHO's program to combat TB. Speaking ahead of a high-level meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Kasaeva said the U.N.'s target of eradicating tuberculosis worldwide by 2030 "is very ambitious given that for now progress is too slow." Like HIV, tuberculosis remains a highly stigmatized illness, preventing some sufferers from seeking treatment. Experts are particularly concerned about the rising number of people contracting drug-resistant variants of TB, many of which aren't diagnosed properly. Treating them can be costly and arduous, requiring years of medication with strong side effects. Dr. Ralf Otto-Knapp of the German Central Committee to Combat Tuberculosis, a group established in the late 19th century when the disease was still widespread in much of Europe, warned against complacency about the disease in an age of global travel. "Because of the increasing mobility in society it also affects economically more powerful countries," he said. "We need a joint political will and the necessary resources to fight tuberculosis effectively." Kasaeva said she hoped leaders attending the New York meeting Wednesday will commit to closing the growing gap between the amount of money available and the billions more required to tackle the disease. Campaigners applauded a recent decision by the World Health Organization to recommend a change in the way drug-resistant tuberculosis is treated, prioritizing oral drugs over injectable medication. The group Doctors Without Borders said such treatment can reduce debilitating side effects, help improve cure rates and cut the number of deaths, but noted that it requires U.S. pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which makes the key drug bedaquiline, to reduce its price in low- and middle-income countries with high rates of drug-resistant TB. The company has already sharply reduced costs for the drug in some countries, but in others a six-month course of treatment can cost several thousand dollars far more than most people can afford. Companies have been reluctant to invest in developing TB medication with only two new drugs coming onto the market in the past 50 years. Claim: Governments to discuss tackling tuberculosis at UN summit.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Viral claims regarding the purported dangers of common household plants belonging to the genus Dieffenbachia (shown above) have been on the internet for years. One article(titled, colorfully, "My Son Died for This Damn Plant it Is Urgent That Everyone Knows, Kills a Child in 1 Minute and an Adult in 15! !") appears identically across multiple websites and provides the followingrepresentative claim: Please read this carefully. My son died because he put a piece of leaf in his mouth and tongue and these swelled to suffocate. This plant is very common in many homes and offices. It is deadly poisonous and dangerous, to the point of killing a child in 1 minute and an adult in 15 minutes. If you touch it by chance you should never bring your fingers to your eyes, as this could cause permanent blindness. Warn your friends and family. This post does not seek to debunk that specific story, in part because it comes with no details that allow any aspect of it to be verified. Instead, this post addresses more broadly the risk posed to humans by this widespread potted plant. Dieffenbachia is indeed very common among household plants (it's simple, and requires little sunlight), and eating its leaves or rubbing your eyes with your hands after coming into contact with the plant may indeed cause irritation,which in turn can cause the swellingdescribed above. As far as the plant causing death, however, Ed Krenzelok, an emeritus professor of pharmacology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a former director of the Pittsburgh Poison Center who has researched Dieffenbachia toxicity specifically, is skeptical: I've never ever seen a fatality in my experience related to Dieffenbachia or any of the members of the Arum family. I've reviewed, virtually [] hundreds of thousands of cases in my career involving plants of this nature. The risk of irritation from Dieffenbachia is not news. People have been aware of its properties as an irritant since at least the first century A.D. Later, Jamaican slave traders sadistically rubbed the juice of these plants on the tongues of slaves, causing their mouths to become painfully swollen, as a form of punishment, making one of its common names "dumb cane". The cause of this irritation comes from a chemical called calcium oxalate, which exists in varying concentrations across the entire plant kingdom, including a variety of food crops. In Dieffenbachia and some other groups of plants, this chemical forms microscopic (but razor-sharp) crystals called raphides that can rip apart and irritate tissues in your mouth or your eyes, as described by Krenzelok: Think of a micro-miniature balloon filled with crystal in the cells of the dieffenbachia and when you bite down on that, you squeeze the cells and the enzymes that are in there and the oxalate crystal are expelled. [] If you just touch a dieffenbachia or rub it on your arm or whatever, without breaking the integrity of the leaf, you're not going to have a problem. Calcium oxalate is a ubiquitous chemical in nature. It is produced as a byproduct of a variety of cellular processes, and can form many different types of chemical structures depending on the species of plant. Not limited to plants, it is also produced as a byproduct in mammalian metabolism as well, and it is one of the most common minerals that form kidney stones. The risk to humans at least, when speaking about the reactions described in these viral posts would come not from the inherent toxicity of calcium oxalate, but from physical abrasion caused by these tiny sharp crystals, as explained by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: Oxalate crystals can cause intense pain and swelling if they come in contact with the skin or mouth. When any part of these plants is chewed and swallowed, the crystals stab the sensitive tissues of the tongue, gums and throat, creating the sensation of biting into ground glass. Pain, difficulty swallowing, swelling and temporary hoarseness may occur. Poisoning from swallowing an oxalate-containing plant is rare because the intense mouth pain usually prevents children from eating a significant quantity of the plant. In terms of contact with the eyes, Krenzelok says he frequently saw eye irritation at his center, but never traumatic, permanent eye damage: I've seen a lot of cases where ocular exposure has occurred, but generally because people have a broken stem or something and they get some of the juice on their fingers and they happen to rub their eye and they have a little irritation. But I've never ever seen or observed a traumatic ocular exposure either. [In my experience], I've never seen loss of vision or anything of that nature. Claim: The household plant Dieffenbachia, one of the most common indoor plants, is so poisonous it can kill a child in one minute and an adult in 15 minutes.
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "On Nov. 27, 2013, a Madison-based liberal advocacy group used a mass email to promote protests that were planned against Walmart stores for two days later -- Black Friday. The demonstrations aimed to ""expose Wal-Mart's shameful labor practices and support workers,"" according to One Wisconsin Now, which then made this claim: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" That reminded us of a March 2011 claim by filmmaker and liberal activist Michael Moore. He said in a Madison speech that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Based on online hits, it became one of our most popular fact-checks ever. So we wondered about the Walmart claim. Wealth, not income In the days before and after Black Friday, leaders no less prominent than President Barack Obama and Pope Francis decried the extent of income disparity in the United States and around the world. Obama called the growing income gap a ""defining challenge of our time."" The pope said that while the earnings of a minority ""are growing exponentially, so, too, is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."" Walmart, of course, is a big target. According to Forbes, as of May 2013 the international retailer had $469 billion in sales and 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million in the United States. The corporation has been criticized for low wages; and in December 2012, PolitiFact National rated as Mostly a claim that more Walmart employees are on Medicaid and food stamps than other companies. But let's be clear up front: Although income and wealth are related, they're not the same. Wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth -- the value of a person's assets minus liabilities. So, things like savings and retirement accounts, minus what is owed on a home mortgage, credit cards, etc. That means a person with heavy debt can have little wealth, or negative wealth, even while earning a six-figure income. One more point before we get to the wealth figures. Walmart was founded by the late Sam Walton, who opened the first store in Arkansas in 1962. Walmart incorporated in 1969 and became a publicly traded company a year later. So, Wal-Mart is not family owned, but rather owned by its stockholders; on the other hand, according to Bloomberg and other news reports, the Walton family members still have control of the company, owning about half of the shares. Group's evidence Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's executive director, told us his evidence to back his group's claim is a July 2012 article by economist Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the liberal Economics Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. Bivens wrote that in 2010, the wealth of six Walton family heirs was $89.5 billion, 22 percent higher than in 2007. Meanwhile, the median wealth of American families in 2010 was $77,300, nearly 39 percent lower than three years earlier. (Median wealth refers to the American family that is exactly wealthier than half of all families and less wealthy than half.) As for measuring one against the other, Bivens said the Walton family wealth in 2010 was as large as the wealth of the bottom 48.8 million families in the United States, or 41.5 percent of all American families. Rounded up, 41.5 percent would be 42 percent, the figure One Wisconsin Now claims. But let's keep shopping around a little. Similar claim It turns out that a statement nearly identical to the one made by One Wisconsin Now was uttered in July 2012 by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. Sanders said the Walton family owns ""more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America,"" a claim PolitiFact National rated . Our colleagues found that Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, compared the Waltons' cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. That survey was published in August 2012. Allegretto found that the Waltons' wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families. The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population. But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Walton's descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth: No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion. A note before we close: Allegretto told us the housing crisis is a key reason that the gap between the Walton family wealth and the wealth of other American families has grown. More Americans were left with ""negative wealth"" because they lost their biggest asset -- their home -- and often significant amounts of their savings, as well, she said. Our rating One Wisconsin Now wrote: ""The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined."" For comparison purposes, the latest data available, for 2010, the figure is 41.5 percent. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website." Claim: The Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.
[EX A]:
2