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 story does not mention the costs of screening or follow-up tests or treatment to the individual or, collectively, to society. Those costs are significant. This story uses several different statistics and expert perspectives to explain what the researchers found in their examination of the effects of mammography screening. It not only include the relative risk reduction (10 percent) and an absolute risk reduction statistic (among women in their 50s, a decade of screening would boost the likelihood of avoiding a fatal breast cancer from 995.6 out of 1,000 to 996 out of 1,000), but it also offered comments from different experts about how they would personally value effects of that size. The story notes that screening mammography exposes women to false alarms scares as well as the risks and harms of treating tumors that actually would not have become life-threatening. This story explains how this study is different from earlier research on mammography. It points out both advantages of the study methods (comparing women in regions with screening to those without as Norway rolled out a national program over a 9 year period) and limitations (an observational study like this is not as powerful as a randomized trial, and the study might have found more benefits to screening if it had lasted longer). The story also noted the uncertainty in the numbers the researchers reported and that the real differences might be different. The story does not exaggerate the risk of breast cancer or the need to be screened for it. The story includes comments from several independent sources offering a variety of perspectives. It does not mention that the study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story notes that improved treatments appear to have reduced the breast cancer death rate even among women who did not have regular screening mammograms. Not being screened was clearly acknowledged as an alternative, something not all competing stories explicitly addressed. The availability of mammography screening is not at issue. This story does point out that the women who were screened in Norway had access to special treatment teams. And it noted that these treatments are available at "many major medical centers in the United States." Mammography is not new, but this story does a good job of explaining what is new about the way these researchers examined the effects of screening. The story includes comments from several sources and does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Mammograms' Value in Cancer Fight at Issue
Example Output: 2

Example Input: Paragraph: The United Nations calls climate change the "defining issue of our time" and is hosting a New York summit on it next week. But reformers within say in the letter addressed to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that it needs more radical change to get its own house in order. "Our commitments need to be more ambitious and at least as concrete as those of the UN Member States and non-party stakeholders attending the UN Climate Action Summit," said the letter, signed by at least 1,950 employees. It was organized by a group called Young UN, an internal network committed to ensuring the organization embodies the principles it stands for. "As Greta Thunberg just sailed across the Atlantic Ocean and young people across the world continue to strike every Friday, let us look at our own impact and take bold steps to address the climate emergency," the letter said, referring to the Swedish teenager who has inspired global climate strikes. The United Nations emitted 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2018, according to its own data which includes both the 44,000 secretariat staff present in more than 60 countries as well as tens of thousands of interns, contractors and peacekeeping troops deployed worldwide. That equates to a carbon footprint larger than several of its member states, including Malta and Liberia, according to statistics from the Global Carbon Atlas for 2017. Among 10 issues identified by Young UN are travel allowances, which the letter said needed to be cut or scrapped "in order to disincentivize travel by UN employees and UN meeting participants motivated by financial gain". Allowances, or per diems as they are known internally, are intended to cover travel costs including food and accommodation, and can exceed $400 a day for some locations such as New York, according to the International Civil Service Commission website. The letter also suggested that staff should be rewarded for downgrading from business class, where a spacious seat generates several times the emissions of an economy class ticket. Travel accounts for nearly half the United Nations' emissions, its data show. Last year, under pressure from member states, the head of the U.N. Environment Programme, Erik Solheim, stepped down amid criticism of his travels. Other reforms recommended in the letter include a complete divestment of the more than $60 billion U.N. pension fund from fossil fuels and creating offices run entirely on renewable energy. Young UN did not respond to requests for comment. Guterres is seeking to combat climate change from within in order to boost sustainability. "The Secretary-General welcomes the initiative of Young UN on climate action in the UN system," Guterres' office said in a statement to Reuters on Friday. "The Secretary-General is committed to lead by example and calls for transformative action to address the climate crisis, including on the part of the UN system and Secretariat itself," it continued. The employees' letter welcomed Guterres' internal strategy but said it "misses the urgency of the crisis we are facing". The United Nations has also launched a "Greening the Blue" initiative which measures the U.N. system's greenhouse gas emissions, waste disposal, fresh-water use, and environmental management. According to its latest report issued on Friday, 55 of its entities, or 95 percent, including the Secretariat, were climate neutral in 2018, against just over a third the previous year. But the letter raises doubts about U.N. offset mechanisms, a method that works through purchases of U.N.-certified carbon credits from approved green projects and is widely used by organizations and businesses to tout their green credentials. This echoes criticism from NGOs about the contribution of offsets to sustainable development. Isabella Marras, Sustainable UN Coordinator, whose team produces the Greening the Blue report and was a signatory to the letter, said she saw scope for the United Nations to give even greater attention to environmental considerations. "What we are missing is the aggressive integration of environmental issues into our programs like the UN has done for women," she told Reuters. But she stressed some of the pragmatic challenges in regions where environmental standards are less strong than in Western countries. Marie-Claire Graf, a 23-year-old Swiss climate activist visiting the U.N. European headquarters in Geneva, said the number of U.N. vehicles in vast carparks overlooking the lake and mountains was surprising. "The UN is doing some amazing things on environment but I am shocked by so many SUVs and the amount of travel," said Graf, who was selected along with 100 young climate leaders to attend the U.N. Youth Climate Summit on 21 September. "The UN needs to lead on this transformation." Claim: U.N. urged by own staff to look at its climate footprint.
Example Output: 2

Example Input: Paragraph: "Newly installed CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert tangled, politely, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on his Sept. 21 show regarding the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz, who's running for the Republican presidential nomination, whether he could agree with Reagan's support of ""amnesty"" for undocumented immigrants and the late president's willingness to raise some taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said ""of course not"" before pivoting to Reagan's most conservative accomplishments, one being that he ""signed the largest tax cut in history"" and spurred economic growth. ""When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year,"" Cruz said. ""There's only one other four-year period where that's true. That's true from 2008 to 2012."" His point was that Reagan rescued the U.S. economy from the ravages it suffered under his Democratic predecessor, President Jimmy Carter, and that the only other equivalent economic distress occurred under Carter's fellow Democrat, Barack Obama. Colbert responded, ""But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world's 'largest tax cut' and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So it's a matter of compromising."" We wondered if Cruz was correct about the periods of low GDP growth. (In a separate fact-check, we explore Colbert's rejoinder.) Excepting the unusual post-World War II period of 1945 through 1949 -- when the nation was demobilizing from an all-encompassing war -- Cruz has put his finger correctly on the two general periods in which the annual average growth of gross domestic product over four-year periods has sunk below 1 percent. They are the late 1970s era of ""stagflation"" (that is, stagnant growth combined with rapid inflation) and the aftermath of the Great Recession. The full annual data can be found here. But there were actually three distinct four-year periods during and after the Great Recession that fit Cruz's criteria, rather than one -- that is, the four-year periods starting with 2006, 2007 and 2008. (With every four-year period beginning after 2009, average annual GDP growth has exceeded 1 percent.) Here's the rundown of the four post-World War II periods that fit Cruz's criteria: First year Second year Third year Fourth year Average annual GDP growth 1979 1980 1981 1982 0.2 percent 2006 2007 2008 2009 0.3 percent 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.4 percent 2008 2009 2010 2011 0.4 percent So Cruz overlooked two additional four-year periods. Also, the implication of his comment -- that Democrats bear the primary responsibility for these periods of poor economic growth -- is not so clear. For starters, as we've discussed previously, economists say it's hard to determine how much credit or blame a president deserves for successes or shortcomings in the economy at large on their watch. Factors outside their control, from energy-price shocks to technological changes to pure luck, can have a significant impact on the nation's economic record. In addition, Cruz's groupings suggest some contradictory standard-setting. For the 1979-1982 period, Carter was in office for the first two years and Reagan was in office for the third and fourth years. But in the next two periods -- 2006-2009 and 2007-2010 -- George W. Bush, a Republican, was president for at least half of the time. In fact, Bush was in charge for the first three years in 2006-2009, and the first two years in 2007-2010. If Carter, Democrat, is to take blame for the slow growth in the first period, then logically Bush, a Republican, should shoulder the same blame in the next two four-year periods. By the same token, if Reagan, a Republican, escapes blame in the first example, then so too should Obama in the second and third four-year periods. And the 2005-2008 period --which occurred entirely on Bush's watch -- barely escapes inclusion on this list, with an average annual growth rate of 1.13 percent. (During the 2008-2011 period,Obamawas president for the final three of those years.) Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, said he doesn't blame either Reagan or Obama for the economic shortcomings early in their tenures that fall under Cruz's statistical claim. Still, he sees a logical inconsistency in Cruz's comparison as stated on Colbert's show. ""It seems doubtful whether poor economic performance early in any president's term can be attributed to the impact of his administration's policies,"" Burtless said. ""If you take office when economic output is plunging, it does not seem legitimate to attribute the economic plunge to the person who just took office."" He added a footnote: Unlike Obama, who unquestionably inherited a recession already under way, the economy actually grew through the first couple of months of Reagan's first term. GDP grew in the third and fourth quarters of 1980, right before he was elected, and continued to grow during the first quarter of 1981 after he was in office, before a ""double-dip"" recession hit. Cruz spokesman Phil Novack told PolitiFact that our analysis misses the point. ""The focus on who exactly held office in each of those individual time periods is not as important as the contrast between the two periods in terms of how quickly the economy was growing before and after those identified time periods, which is the point Cruz was making,"" Novack said. ""His point was obviously referring to policy results, and we know the results of the policies that followed those slow-growth years of below 1 percent growth that Sen. Cruz identified. Reagan's policies brought us a boom, and Obama's policies have been a bust."" For what it's worth, we also compared Carter and Reagan on their economic records and found them more similar than one might expect. During Carter's four years in office, the growth rate averaged 3.23 percent a year. If you take the first four years of Reagan's presidency, it averaged 3.34 percent. Essentially, each president had two good years and two bad years, which more or less averaged out. Our ruling Cruz said that ""when (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There's only one other four-year period where that's true. That's true from 2008 to 2012."" Cruz missedtwo other four-year periods that fit the criteria. In addition, his implication -- that Democrats are largely to blame for those conditions -- doesn't stand up to logical consistency, particularly when he excluded the period beginning in 2006 (which included three years solely under Bush) and 2007 (which included two years solely under Bush). This goes on top of general uncertainty about how much blame to assign presidents for poor economic conditions." Claim: When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There's only one other four-year period where that's true. That's true from 2008 to 2012.
Example Output:
0