Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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: Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography&!1-positive recalls&biopsies were not included in the study,readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography&biopsies increase patient financial costs.This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating "Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a!1 alarm,a new study shows." Unfortunately the writer doesn't quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction.Instead,the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn't be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled.Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms&!1-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually.Part of the continuing controversy over screening mammography focuses on annual versus biennial screening.Because this study showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled&needing biopsies among women who are screened every other year,with no statistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer,the article should have emphasized those important findings.The piece states that the researchers noted that "!1 positive recalls may cause inconvenience&anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring." This article fails to include several important facts about the study.1)This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006.2)Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital.3)Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period.4)Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms.There was no disease mongering.No independent experts were quoted.The story did an adequate job comparing at a very high level annual screening versus biennial screening.Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States.The study did not examine a new procedure.There's no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release.
Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives
Output: 1
This article reports on the results of a study of nearly 170,0 women who had screening mammograms beginning between age 40-59.The study found that over ten years of screening mammograms,over half of the women will experience a!1-positive recall for additional mammography.In addition,7%-9%of the women will have a biopsy for a suspicious lump which is not cancerous.Both of those percentages decrease if the woman is screened every other year rather than every year.Even with biennial mammography,41%of women will experience a recall over 10 years of mammography.The study's Principal Investigator emphasized that "in most cases,a recall doesn't mean you have cancer." She hoped this knowledge would reduce the anxiety of women who are recalled.The story never explained the size of the decrease in the number of!1 positives between annual(61.3%) and biennial screening(41.6%).Our first two reviewers were a researcher who specializes in health decisions and a breast cancer survivor trained in evidence by the Natiional Breast Cancer Coalition's Project LEAD.This study is valuable because it helps to quantify and compare the harms of annual and biennial screening,specifically the number of!1 positives and the number of unnecessary biopsies.Prior to this study,estimates of!1 positive screening mammography rates varied widely.The critical question is whether you can do less frequent screening,subject women to fewer harms and get similar results in terms of detection of "early stage" cancer.This study's data seems to suggest that answer is yes.

New input case for you: Paragraph: "Democrats savaged the Republican legislation, pushed by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that would replace Obamacare. ""Under 'Trumpcare,'"" U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin declared in a May 4, 2017 news release, ""being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault could be considered pre-existing conditions."" The claim by Moore, who has talked publicly about being a victim of domestic violence and sexual assault herself, cuts to one of the big fears around health care -- that having something that is considered a pre-existing condition means a person has to pay more for insurance, or could be denied coverage altogether. Typically, this refers to things such as diabetes or cancer. But sexual assault or domestic violence? Obamacare vs 'Trumpcare' The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is the 2010 legislation adopted under President Barack Obama. It prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage -- or charging higher premiums -- because a person has a pre-existing medical condition. Under the American Health Care Act (sometimes called ""Trumpcare""), insurers would still be prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The bill was narrowly approved by the House of Representatives and could be changed in the Senate. But in its current form, the bill would give states the option to allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions higher prices. Republicans argue those people would be protected, because those states would have to set up high-risk pools to insure people with pre-existing conditions. But many analysts believe the law would still leave those people more vulnerable to cost increases that could make their plans unaffordable. (The day after the House passed the bill, GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would consider allowing insurers to charge higher prices. But later that day -- in an indication of how politically touchy the issue is -- he backed away from that comment after it drew criticism.) Pre-existing conditions Bloggers claimed that under the GOP bill, sexual assault is a pre-existing condition, which PolitiFact National rated . PolitiFact National spelled out what would happen under the GOP bill regarding sexual assault and experts told us that the same would apply to domestic violence. In a nutshell: The bill does not single out any specific medical event or diagnosis as a pre-existing condition. Conditions stemming from a sexual assault or domestic violence, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or certain sexually transmitted diseases, could be judged to be a pre-existing condition. States would have the option to allow insurers to charge higher prices to people with an existing condition, possibly making coverage unaffordable. Our rating Moore says that ""under 'Trumpcare,'"" the Republican replacement for Obamacare, domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions"" -- something that could trigger higher insurance prices for those victims. Moore's claim goes too far. Simply being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault would not mean a person had a pre-existing condition. But it is important to know that conditions stemming from those assaults, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, could. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is ." Claim: "Under 'Trumpcare,'"" domestic violence and sexual assault ""could be considered pre-existing conditions."
Output:
0