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.

Input: Consider Input: "Coronavirus infections are on the rise in Texas, with some areas experiencing a more dramatic increase than others. In Central Texas, Austin and its surrounding counties have reported an increase in the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and hospitalizations. Hays County, which sits to the south of Austin, has been hit particularly hard. On June 19, the county reported more active cases than Austin's Travis County a remarkable feat considering that Travis County's population is five times that of Hays County. U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat whose district includes parts of both counties, shared two tweets about the Austin area, including one highlighting the impact of the virus in Hays County. ""Hays County is one of the only places in Texas with more trouble: an incredible 845% increase in cases since June 7,"" he wrote. There's no question Hays County has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, but is Doggett's figure accurate? Hays County increase tied to activities In response to a question from PolitiFact Texas, Hays County spokeswoman Kim Hilsenbeck shared a press release outlining the impact of the coronavirus in the county since the onset of the pandemic. During April and early May when local and statewide orders to stay at home were in place the number of new daily cases in the county ranged from zero to ten. In late April, Gov. Greg Abbott initiated the first phase of a plan to reopen the state's economy and allowed the statewide stay-at-home order to expire. He also allowed restaurants, retail stores, malls and movie theaters to reopen at limited capacity. In subsequent phases, Abbott allowed barbershops and salons to reopen with limited capacity and other restrictions. He also allowed rivers, parks and other natural areas to reopen. County health officials said they believe the gradual reopening of businesses might have contributed to an increase in COVID-19 cases. ""Through contact tracing, our health department staff were able to see the rapid increase in COVID-19 totals seemed to coincide with activities such as working at or going to restaurants and bars, activities such as floating the river, and attending large public gatherings,"" the release reads. Hilsenbeck also highlighted Mothers Day (May 10), Memorial Day (May 25) and protests against racism and police brutality as significant events in May. By the end of May and early June, the number of new cases in the county started to rise. On May 27 there were 18 new cases. On June 8, there were 43 new cases. More recently, the number of new daily cases in Hays County has ranged from 100 to 200. In April and May, the majority of new cases in the county were primarily in Kyle among people older than 30 who were Hispanic. But since early June, the group experiencing the largest increase in new COVID-19 cases is 20 to 29-year-olds in San Marcos. The number of people who identified as Hispanic has decreased. ""While not all 20-29-year-olds are college students, San Marcos has a large student population because of Texas State University, many of whom are now back in town following a period of virtual learning throughout the spring,"" the release reads. Examining data on new cases Doggett spokeswoman Kate Stotesbery said the figure he shared came from a graph published by an Austin-area television station. The graph shows the number of new coronavirus cases that have been reported each day in Hays County since April, plus a line showing the 14-day average of daily new cases. An arrow pointing upwards is overlaid on the graphic, with text on top that reads: ""845% 14-day average since June 7."" But Doggett's remark on Twitter is missing that detail that there has been an 845% increase in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases in the county since June 7. The increase in the actual number of cases is much higher. On June 7, the cumulative number of cases in the county was 385 and the number of new daily cases had been fluctuating. There were 24 new cases on June 2, 14 new cases on June 4 and zero new cases on June 7. By June 21, the cumulative count of cases in Hays County was 1,608, with 57 new cases reported that day. Looking at the 14-day average of new cases, it was 8 on June 7 and 87 on June 21. But the 7-day average is a more commonly used measurement by government agencies and news outlets to assess changes in the number of new cases in the area. The change in that figure during this period is substantially higher. Using weekly averages instead of daily tallies offers a more accurate picture of change over time, as it reduces the impact of daily spikes. From June 7 to June 21, Hays County experienced a roughly 1,569% increase in the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases from 8 cases on June 7 to 134 on June 21. Our ruling Doggett said that Hays County had experienced ""an incredible 845% increase in cases since June 7."" Doggett was actually speaking about an increase in the 14-day average of new COVID-19 cases a less common measurement of the increase in COVID-19 cases in an area but his figure is accurate."

Output: Hays County in Central Texas has seen an "incredible 845% increase in (COVID-19) cases since June 7."

Input: Consider Input: The story provided no cost estimates for vitamin and mineral supplements. The magnitude of wasted expenditures that could be saved is relevant. The story indicated that there was no cancer risk reduction associated with the vitamin supplements studied. A quote in the story from the author of one of the studies indicated that too little or too much of particular vitamins was associated with increased cancer risk. In addition, the table in the story provided information about vitamins being associated with an increased risk of diabetes and a higher, though not significant increase in the incidence in the case of one cancer. The story did not convey any sense of the quality of the studies on which it was reporting. Were they retrospective observational studies (generally weak designs) or prospective randomized trials (the best type of study). A more insightful explanation about why the current group of studies which find no protective effect are more compelling that the previous studies that found a protective effect of vitamins would have also been useful.. This story did not engage in disease mongering. The story included quotes from one of the study authors, as well as a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society and an expert without connection to the study but who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. The story mentions specific lifestyle interventions which have been shown to be associated with reduction in cancer risk. It inaccurately mentioned screening for colon, cervical, and breast cancer as means of reducing their risk. It should have stated that these screening tests are associated with reduced risk of dying of these cancers, not as means of reducing the chance of developing them. It's clear that vitamins and mineral supplements are in widespread use. The story correctly indicated that the results of the current study are consistent with the results from several recent studies which demonstrated that vitamin supplementation failed to decrease the chance of developing cancer. The sidebar table, which summarized results and included the journal name and month of publication, provided a resource for interested readers to find more information. Does not appear to rely on a press release.

Output: Vitamins get 'F' in cancer prevention

Input: Consider Input: After a spate of mass shootings in early August 2019 in the United States, gun violence once again became a major topic of political debate in the country, and many expressed their views on potential solutions to the problem. The left-leaning Facebook page Occupy Democrats suggested that tighter gun-ownership regulations could help to reduce levels of firearms-related fatalities. On Aug. 7, the page posted a meme that claimed: "In Massachusetts, to buy a gun you have to take a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and have a one-on-one interview with a police officer. Oh, and it has the lowest gun death rate in America. Let's do this everywhere." We received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of that two-part claim. On the whole, the Occupy Democrats meme had a high degree of accuracy. Elements of the meme appeared to have been copied from a Facebook post earlier on Aug. 7 by U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. The meme itself was accompanied by text that read: "'Adjusted for age and population, the gun fatality rate in Massachusetts for 2016 was the lowest in the U.S. And that's how it's been for most of the last 30 years, although sometimes another state, like Hawaii, which also has very strict gun laws, ends up with a slightly lower rate. '" That text is actually a quotation taken from a May 6, 2018, article published by the Huffington Post, which went on to provide the following disclaimer: "Just how much that low rate has to do with the state's gun laws is a matter of ongoing debate, even among experts. Pretty much any legitimate study is going to rely on assumptions that will be open to valid criticism; separating out cause and effect can be virtually impossible. But the available research provides a good reason to think Massachusetts laws in general and the permit system in particular have made violence less likely." This fact check won't attempt to rule on the validity of any claim that relatively strict gun regulations in Massachusetts are the primary or exclusive cause of that state's purportedly low rate of firearms-related deaths, merely whether both factors are present there. Massachusetts state law certainly contains comparatively stringent requirements for obtaining and renewing firearms licenses, as well as purchasing and carrying firearms, and the claims made in the Occupy Democrats meme were largely accurate. In Massachusetts, anyone who wishes to purchase or carry a firearm must obtain a firearms license, of which there are two kinds: a license to carry and a firearms identification card (FID), the latter of which relates to rifles and shotguns. Applications for firearms licenses are processed by local police forces, and a 2014 state law gave law-enforcement agencies relatively wide authority and discretion to deny license applications, through a court process, where a license applicant poses a demonstrable risk to public safety. All first-time applicants for a license to carry or an FID must complete a one-day MA Certified Firearms Safety Course or a Basic Hunter Education Course, as part of the application. So the meme's claim is accurate as regards first-time license applicants, but not for those who already have one, who are not required to undergo training every time they wish to purchase a new gun, for example. Furthermore, all applicants (whether first-time applicants or those applying to renew their firearms license) must provide two character references, as outlined in the state-issued "LTC/FID/Machine gun application," which can be viewed here. The meme is accurate in this regard. Finally, Massachusetts state law does not oblige a "licensing authority" (typically a police force) to require an in-person interview with license applicants, but many police forces, including the largest in the state, Boston's, do require such an interview. So that obligation is not prescribed in law, but is a practical necessity for many firearms-license applicants, which partially vindicates the meme's claim in this regard. This was true in 2016, as the Huffington Post article (which Occupy Democrats indirectly cited as its source) outlined, though not quite accurate in 2017. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks gun deaths (along with many other cause of death) in each state every year. The CDC also calculates gun death rates in each state every year that is, the number of firearms-related deaths per 100,000 people living in the state, after taking into account and standardizing age distributions across states. In its standard measure of gun deaths, the CDC counts all forms of firearms fatalities including homicides, suicides and accidental discharges. In 2016, Massachusetts had the lowest age-adjusted gun death rate in the country, with 3.4 fatalities per 100,000 people. Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii and Connecticut had the next-lowest death rates, while Alaska, Alabama and Louisiana had the highest rates of gun deaths in the U.S., with 23.3, 21.5 and 21.3 fatalities per 100,000 people, respectively: Along with New York, Massachusetts had the joint second-lowest gun death rate in 2017, with 3.7 per 100,000 people, behind Hawaii, which had 2.5 such fatalities per 100,000 people: As the Huffington Post article pointed out, Massachusetts regularly has among the lowest annual rates of gun deaths in the United States. As well as in 2016, it also had the lowest rate in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2012 and 2015, The chart below shows the age-adjusted gun death rate of every state, taking into account all gun deaths between 1999 and 2017. Massachusetts had the second-lowest gun death rate over that 19-year period, behind Hawaii. Louisiana, Alaska, the District of Columbia and Mississippi had the highest: Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook post clearly specified that the basis of the claim in the meme were the figures for 2016, a year in which Massachusetts did indeed have the lowest gun death rate in the country, the meme itself did not make that clear. Taken on its face, the meme was claiming that Massachusetts had the lowest rate of gun deaths in either 2019 (the year in which it was posted) or 2018 (the most recent full year). The state may well ultimately be shown to have the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country during those years, but CDC data for 2019 and 2018 will not be available until 2021 and 2020, respectively. On the whole, the Occupy Democrats meme was highly accurate, though not perfectly so.
Output: Massachusetts has certain strict gun-ownership requirements and the lowest rate of gun deaths in the United States.