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 Input:
In April 2018, the right-leaning Turning Point USA posted a Facebook meme which attacked Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for once supporting a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in a "poor Latino community in Texas": In the 90's, Trump supported a bill to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas where the average yearly income was $8,000. When asked if he would visit the site, he said "Absolutely not." Oh wait! Never mind, that was Bernie Sanders! And he actually co-sponsored the bill! The meme was re-posted by the "Capitalism" Facebook page: In 1997 and 1998, Sanders did indeed support a measure that gave Congressional approval to an arrangement that would have allowed the states of Maine and Vermont to transport and dispose of nuclear waste at a proposed site in the sparsely populated town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, close to the Mexican border in West Texas. As the meme suggests, Sierra Blanca was (and is) a predominantly Latino community. U.S. Census Bureaurecords show that in 2000, two years after the proposal, 73 percent of the town's 533 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, and almost all of those as Mexican. In 2016, some 69 percent of Sierra Blanca's 557 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino. In 1999, the annual per capita income of Sierra Blanca residents was $10,768, which was 45 percent lower than that of Texans at large ($19,617). In 2016, the median household income in Sierra Blanca was estimated to be $41,875 as compared to $54,727 in the state of Texas. As an Independent member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Vermont, Sanders was one of 23 co-sponsors of House Resolution 629, which called for Congress to give its consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact an agreement between the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. Speaking on the floor of the house in October 1997, Sanders said he was in "strong support" of the resolution for environmental reasons, and stressed that he personally was opposed to the use of nuclear power, but that the waste it produces had to be disposed of as safely as possible. It is worth reading a relatively extensive excerpt from his remarksin order to get a good sense of Sanders' stated reasoning: Let me touch, for a moment, upon the environmental aspects of this issue. And let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, opposes the construction of nuclear power plants and if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could. One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. Butthe reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We can't wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is hereSo the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgement, the important environmental judgement as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created. Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced despite the fact that that site might be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste, and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste is horrendous environmental policyNo reputable scientist of environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that ground water will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment. There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface is a far better location for this waste. This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality. A video clip of his comments can be viewedhere. Congress passed the resolution comfortably by 305 votes to 117, as did the Senate, by 78 votes to 15. The proposal had much stronger support among Republicans than among Democrats. GOP members of the House voted 197-26 in favor, while Democrats were more evenly split, voting 107-91 in favor. In the Senate, not a single Republican opposed H.R. 629, while 51 of them voted for it. Fifteen Democratic Senators opposed the bill, while 27 of them voted in support. At that time, five out six Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine were Republicans. All five of them voted in favor of the proposal. Both of Maine's Representatives voted for the disposal site, as did 10 out of the 13 Republican Congress members from Texas. In the House, the proposal had 23 co-sponsors. Eleven were Republicans, eleven were Democrats, and one was Sanders himself, an Independent. The author of the resolution was Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas. Despite Congressional approval for the agreement, authorities in Texas ultimately rejected the proposal to establish a disposal site at Sierra Blanca. In October 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission voted 3-0 against issuing a permit for the construction of a nuclear waste dump there. According to the Associated Press, commission chairman Barry McBee said the disposal site could have provided a much-needed economic boost to the area, but commission members were sufficiently concerned about safety issues to deny the permit. According to a September 1998 article in the Texas Observer, a group of activists opposed to the Sierra Blanca waste site approached Sanders at an anti-nuclear weapons rally in Vermont that year: Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont." We contacted Bill Addison, a leading opponent of the Sierra Blanca proposal, who was identified in the Texas Tribune article as having attended that Springfield rally. He confirmed that he was present and corroborated the article's account of the activists' interaction with Sanders. We asked a spokesperson for Sanders whether he agrees that this exchange took place, but we did not receive a response to that specific question. Instead, the spokesperson offered a broader explanation and defense of the Senator's support of H.R. 629: The only reason Senator Sanders was ever involved is because the constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts. Texas RepresentativeJoe Bartonintroduced such legislation in 1998, and twenty-three members of the Vermont, Texas and Maine congressional delegations cosponsored it. The billdid not endorse a specific site in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked. The compact, much less the site selection were never Sen. Sanders' idea. He disagrees with the very premise of the 1980 law that led to the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact, since it put the burden of disposing of low-level waste on the states, rather the nuclear energy companies that produced much of the waste. In fact, he has long been an opponent of nuclear power precisely it produces waste for which we still have no solution (the Texas site is just for low-level contamination there is still no plan for all of the high-level nuclear waste all across the country). Sanders' spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill. For example, in April 1998 (three months before Sanders and others in the House voted in favor of H.R. 629) the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone condemned the proposed Sierra Blanca site from the floor of the Senate: What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas a town called Sierra Blanca. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca. The Turning Point USA meme is accurate in claiming that Sanders supported and co-sponsored a proposal that would have seen nuclear waste from Maine, Vermont and (principally) Texas disposed of at a site in Sierra Blanca, and that Sierra Blanca was (and still is) a predominately Latino and relatively poor community. The meme leaves out important and relevant context by failing to mention the key role that Republicans played in crafting and passing that proposal; instead, it singles out Sanders and does not offer the reader any inkling of his environmentalist rationale. Sanders stood to gain politically from supporting a plan that would remove nuclear waste from his constituency, but this does not necessarily mean he wasn't motivated by a sincere desire to dispose of the waste in a manner and location that he genuinely believed to be safer. However, whether or not you believe his stated rationale was sincere, no proper analysis of a particular politician's policy position or Congressional vote should leave out the reasons put forward by that politician. Finally, we were not able to corroborate the "Absolutely not" quotation attributed to Sanders, and his spokesperson did not address our question about it.

Ex Output:
"Sen. Bernie Sanders once supported a proposal to ""dump nuclear waste"" in the ""poor Latino community"" of Sierra Blanca, Texas."

Ex Input:
Wiping her face with a cotton pad after a Botox injection, the 49-year-old supermarket worker said she has cut down on petrol and entertainment to afford the treatments, which make the skin appear smoother by temporarily paralyzing muscles. "I want to look at myself in the mirror and feel good. I'm afraid of aging," Vorlioti said. "Work, the crisis, they push you down and you want something uplifting." She is not the only one seeking solace in beauty treatments amid a financial crisis that cut hundreds of thousands of jobs cut, slashed salaries and caused a sharp decline in life satisfaction among Greeks. In fact, it seems Greece is undergoing what has been dubbed the "lipstick effect", where consumers turn to low cost beauty to boost their mood during economic depressions. Non-surgical procedures in Greece soared to more than 220,000 in 2016 compared to around 61,000 in 2010, the biggest jump in Europe in the six-year period, according to data by the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). At between 80 and 150 euros a pop, it doesn't come cheap for Greeks, who earn an average net monthly income of about 780 euros. Some, like Vorlioti, need to save up for months in order to be able to afford a treatment and yet more are choosing to have them, doctors say. "The crisis has brought new people to the doctor's doorstep, people who wouldn't come before, both men and women who are struggling and want to improve their looks to feel better," said Lia Papadavid, a dermatologist. "It's like giving themselves a present," she told Reuters shortly after giving a middle-aged female a filler injection around her eyes. The rise in Greece follows a world-wide upward trend in non-surgical procedures. It ranked 14th in the world among the top 24 countries in terms of volume of non surgical treatments in 2016, behind countries such as Italy and Germany but above Belgium, according to ISAPS. Surgical treatments, which can cost thousands of euros, are up only 10 percent since 2010. Waiting her turn at the Athens Aurum medical center, 43-year-old Eleni says she turned to injectables in 2013 and has not stopped despite the crisis. "No one has money to spare, everyone is being pressured right now with the crisis, some less, some more. I think it needs a bit of planning, and to love yourself." Investment in the beauty industry doubled between 2009-2015, said the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises in a July report. New nail bars and beauty centers have popped up in central Athens and in the central Syntagma square, young men and women are seen handing out flyers advertising discounts on cosmetic services to passers-by. Chairman of the ISAPS Education Council Paraskevas Kontoes said the surge in non invasive treatments could be explained by their low cost, better results thanks to new technology and people needing to boost their self-esteem battered by years of crisis. Non surgical beauty treatments are fast enough to have in a lunch break, but their effects are only temporary. Results can last eight months or longer depending on the product, Dr Stefanos Stathakis said. He also said most people choose treatments for the face, tying in with other doctors' reports that their clients believe they can help them score better in a job interview, particularly as competition for jobs in Greece is fierce. "They believe it will become easier for them to get a job," said Vorlioti's dermatologist Froso Saksioni. "People struggle and come here for a change. If you charge them a fortune for a treatment it's like giving them a slap instead." As Saksioni prepares for "a vampire lift", where the doctor withdraws and then reinjects a patient's blood to erase wrinkles, Vorlioti books her next appointment. "I've decided to cut down on everything else to do this", she said. "When I feel good about myself, I think it shows."

Ex Output:
The lipstick effect: Greeks discover need to pamper in crisis.

Ex Input:
We give the story credit for at least citing a $30,000 cost for the "surgeries" but wish it had explained what that included and what it might not. Surgery to change the battery every two years certainly adds to cost. Undoubtedly patients require more intensive expensive followup and perhaps specialized checks to ensure the device is working. With broad strokes across discussion of three different uses for three different conditions, the story did an adequate job quantifiying benefits. As stated in the "Evidence" criterion above, this is where a control group and reporting response rates for treated versus control groups would be very informative. Instead, we only get a qualitative description of benefits which is useful but which might leave careful readers asking for more. This is one area where the story could have been improved. There was no detailed discussion of what can go wrong with deep brain stimulation. There was a brief mention of "if" the electrodes cause neurological side effects. But how often does that happen? And the story noted that the surgery does "sometimes" cause dangerous brain bleeding or infections. How often is "sometimes"? At a very high, overview level, the story explained the current state of the evidence. But more information would have been better. Current evidence for depression/OCD is based on case series. These studies don't have a control group, making the results more subject to bias. No disease mongering of any of the conditions discussed. The story was repeatedly clear about deep brain stimulation being used when standard medications or behavior therapy had not worked. But it would be helpful to give estimates of the proportion of patients with depression or OCD who aren't helped by available treatments. Several sources were cited. Dr. Mayberg's connection to St. Jude Medical was mentioned. The story could have mentioned that Dr. Okun's center and Dr. Greenberg have received funding from Medtronic. Greenberg's current funding from the National Institute of Mental Health was noted. We think the sourcing and disclosure was adequate. A strong point of the story was that it repeatedly provided the context for the use of deep brain stimulation "when standard medications failworst-case patientsdoesn't mean patients can abandon traditional therapypeople with intractable (problems)(people who) failed behavior therapy." This story already attempted to accomplish a lot, but to be complete, it could have offered explicit description of currently approved options: antidepressant medications (multiple classes); psychotherapy (multiple options); combinations of medications or medications and therapy; transcranial magnetic stimulation (limited availabilty), vagal nerve stimulation, ECT and estimate of the proportion of patients who fail these treatments. Nonethless, we feel it met the criteria for a satisfactory score. The story states that 70,000 have had deep brian stimulation for Parkinson's or other movement disorders, and that studies are underway on at least 60 people with intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder and 100 with severe depression. The experimental nature of these approaches is clear from the story. A nice touch would be to give a link to clinicaltrials.gov to allow readers the option of looking up more information on the studies in progress and finding out if recruitment is open and how to access the study. The story did a good job putting the new uses of deep brain stimulation into the context of other research and other therapeutic approaches. It's clear that the story did not rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Trying brain pacemakers to zap psychiatric disease