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: There was no discussion of class costs. How much do yoga classes several times a week cost? The story provided much discussion about the impact of the yoga on levels of 'oxidative stress'. Besides the fact that the link between oxidative stress and disease is tenuous at best, the story reported that those in the yoga group had a 20% reduction in oxidative stress when the study results showed that they had a 20% reduction in one marker of oxidative stress but at the same time showed reductions in two pathways form managing oxidative stress which could be interpreted as increasing their risk from oxidative stress. Even the weight loss was not really quantified (the writer mentioned "a handful of pounds" lost). This does not actually address what is known about any potential harms of the type of yoga reported on. The story could have mentioned that the study mentioned that there were no adverse events reported during the 3 months of yoga classes but that about 5% of those assigned to the yoga classes dropped out and were not included in the final analysis. The story did not provide sufficient details for readers to evaluate how the study results might apply to them. And the story included only hand picked pieces of information from the study. While it is potentially exciting that the change in body weight between the groups was statistically different at 3 months, the magnitude of that change is not clinically significant. The story also didn't explain what measures of oxidative stress were used. The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering. The story did not quote any independent sources. There was no discusion about how adding other lifestyle changes in addition to the other management strategies in place affect the health of those with type II diabetes. For example, prior studies have examined the benefits of regular light exercise. A discussion of exercise alternatives and their relative benefits would have helped the readers judge the benefit of yoga in context. The story indicated that gentle yoga classes might be found in hospitals and local community settings. The story didn't give any context about prior reports examining the potential for people with type II diabetes to benefit from participation in regular series of yoga classes. We can't be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. We do know that it quoted only a single source the lead researcher. Claim: Yoga shows some benefit for diabetes
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: We won't require a discussion of costs in this story because the use of zoledronic acid for early stage breast cancer is still up in the air. However, since the drug is already being sold for other indications, the story would have been better if it had told readers something about the costs of using the drug for approved indications. The story headline and lead muddled the main conclusion of the AZURE trial: that there was no survival benefit to adding zoledronic acid to standard therapy for women with early stage breast cancer. In contrast to the headline of this story saying that any benefit to younger women is "in question," the other story we reviewed included a quote from the lead author of the study article saying that not only did younger patients get no benefit, "If anything, they are doing a little bit worse." The story did accurately report that there may be some benefit to postmenopausal women, but the story should have been more cautious in presenting the results of the sub-group analysis. Overall, the thrust of the story didn't appear to match the negative results that researchers reported. The article did not mention any adverse effects associated with zoledronic acid. The story should have at least discussed the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw bonea serious complication affecting more than one percent of study subjects. The article never mentioned that roughly one percent of women taking zoledronic acid in this trial developed a serious side effect: confirmed osteonecrosis of the jawbone. And another half a percent of subjects may have developed this bone-destroying problem. Women weighing the pros and cons of zoledronic acid for early breast canceror for other indications such as metastatic breast cancerwould certainly want to take this potentially devastating side-effect into account in their decision-making. And it deserved mention in the article. The article provided an adequate description of the randomized trial. In addition, it offered readers background on an earlier trial, highlighting some possible reasons that trial produced different results. However, it appeared to overstate the power of a subgroup analysis to produce conclusive results; in this case that the drug may extend the lives of women with established menopause. To produce strong take-home messages, the results of subgroup analyses have to be tested in further clinical trials. The story did offer a statement from an independent expert to this effect further down the pagebut never explicitly stated that subgroup analyses have inherent limitations. There was no hint of disease mongering in this article. The article used an independent source. Howeever, it failed to tell readers about the support provided by the pharmaceutical company that markets this drug or about speaker fees paid to the lead researcher. The story did point out that the women in this trial did receive standard therapy, though it did not specifically say what that treatment entails. We will give the story a satisfactory rating since it is not clear that there is a proven alternative that would provide the type of recurrence and survival benefits seen in a previous study of zoledronic acid for early stage breast cancer. The article did not clarify the regulatory status of zoledronic acid. The FDA has approved zoledronic acid as a treatment for metastatic breast cancer but not for early stage breast cancer. The article made it clear that zoledronic acid is already being used in routine clinical care for other indications. The article did not appear to be overly reliant on a news release. Claim: Drug's benefit to younger breast cancer patients in question
Example Output: 1

Example Input: Paragraph: The 2017-2018 flu season is proving to be among the worst in recent history,in part because this year's flu shot offers little protection against the most virulent strain H3N2. The strength of this year's epidemic has also lead to an increase in influenza-based fear-mongering, generally about the drugs or vaccines used to combat the virus. One target of online fear is the antiviral drug Tamiflu, prescribed to reduce the length of illness, or in some cases as a preventative measure. A well-shared 14 February 2018 Facebook post took this to an extreme when it blamed the reportedly increased deaths not on the influenza itself but the drug Tamiflu: So it isn't the flu that is causing the deaths.. Maybe it's the tamiflu It says so on the insert It can lead you to death.. Yikes.. DO NOT TAKE THE TAMIFLU.. The doctor at our local hospital wouldn't even prescribe Tamiflu when we took our daughter because of the side effects and risk. In support of this claim, the user posted a excerpt of the medication's safety insert about "change in behavior," using a white line to highlight the word "death": People, especially children, who have the flu can develop nervous system problems and abnormal behavior that can lead to death. During treatment with Tamiflu, tell your healthcare provider right away if you or your child have confusion, speech problems, shaky movements, seizure, or start hearing voices or seeing things that are not really there (hallucinations). The existence of this warning is factual (though not especially unique, as many drug inserts list death as a rare side effect), but research supporting this connection is controversial. Change in behavior is indeed a class of side effects linked to Tamiflu, and it is one that has been also been linked in rare cases to deaths. However, those deaths mainly resulted from dangerous or self destructive behavior, easily distinguishable from deaths caused by flu symptoms. Our article on a viral Facebook post about a child's possible terrifying reaction to Tamiflu goes into more detailabout these side effects. However, to suggest that Tamiflu is responsible for the increased number of deaths is at best illogical, as the symptoms that would accompany the behavioral changes (hallucinations, seizures, speech problems) would be obvious even to the most untrained medical professional. It is also unsupported by any credible evidence a majority of influenza deaths this year are due to higher than usual rates of pneumonia, a condition characterized by fluid in the lungs which isextremely difficult to confuse with the symptoms listed above or behavioral aberrations. Claim: Tamiflu is responsible for the increased number of deaths this flu season.
Example Output:
0