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:
"Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, campaigning for re-election, tweeted a parody of President Barack Obama promoting his signature health-care law. Around midday Dec. 12, 2013, the official White House Twitter account posted a photo of Obama holding a sign urging Americans to get health coverage because ""nobody should go broke just because they get sick."" Social media denizens started creating versions that rewrote the sign's text; Dewhurst's had Obama saying, ""I want more of Texans' private data."" Some perspective: Texas in 2012 had approximately 19.5 million insured residents and 5.2 million legal residents without insurance according to a March 18, 2013, report by the state Health and Human Services Commission. Does the Obamacare law demand private data on them that wasn't known to the government before? PolitiFact reporters have checked out several claims about how the Affordable Care Act's online marketplaces will handle personal information. Many of the concerns addressed are about how government agencies will share information they already collect -- and how secure that information will be. As part of a May 2013 fact-check, PolitiFact in Washington, D.C., reported that a federal ""data hub"" resulting from the 2010 law would pull information from government agencies, but not expand federal data collection. For example, the Social Security Administration is asked to verify a person's Social Security number, and the IRS confirms financial data to see if a person is eligible for a subsidy. PolitiFact in D.C. gave a False rating Sept. 19, 2013, to a claim by former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey that ""Obamacare will question your sex life,"" finding that nothing in the health care law required such questions. So what information does the government collect under the Obamacare law? If you apply to shop in the federal online insurance marketplace or the marketplace for your state, you'll supply information on yourself and perhaps family members, some of which the government already has. Healthcare.gov offers a checklist for people preparing to fill out applications, whether online or printed: Social Security number, employer, income, current insurance policy numbers and information about your employer's insurance plans (if any). Such answers will help determine whether you're eligible to buy insurance through the marketplaces and if you can get free- or reduced-cost coverage via tax credits, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. The standardized family application asks for information on you and everyone who lives with you, including whether you are pregnant and how many babies you're expecting, whether you have a health condition that limits daily activities, whether you live in a nursing home and whether you were in foster care after age 18. Other questions concern employment, military service, sources of income, tax deductions taken and whether you are American Indian or Alaska Native. A Sept. 18, 2013, fact sheet from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said, ""Personal health information (PHI) will be requested only when it is needed to complete the application and make an eligibility determination for health coverage options."" Health privacy expert Deven McGraw told us by email that the applications do collect some information the government did not already have, but said it's the same type of information gathered when people apply for public coverage such as Medicaid. ""They are questions that are specifically designed to match eligibility criteria. So none of it is extraneous,"" said McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which advocates for Internet freedom. And, she said, the data can't be used for any purposes other than the marketplaces' functions. More information about you could come, the fact sheet says, from ""common federal data sources including the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)."" Wait -- Homeland Security? According to the National Immigration Law Center's website, applicants who are not U.S. citizens will have their status verified through a Homeland/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service database. Agencies already use the web service, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), to determine immigrants' eligibility for benefits including Medicaid, housing loans and unemployment. Via email, Social Security spokeswoman Kia Anderson told us her agency can, when CMS needs the information to determine eligibility, provide applicants' ID numbers, citizenship data, death or disability indicators and Social Security income and coverage earned. So the application process puts together some information the government already had with some it didn't have. People who aren't applying to shop in the marketplaces but are subject to the Obamacare law's mandate will also be sharing some new information with Uncle Sam. The mandate to have or get insurance applies, according to the immigration law center, to all U.S. citizens, naturalized citizens and legal immigrants. Via email, IRS spokeswoman Lea Crusberg said 2014 tax returns will ask whether you have health coverage that meets the new standards or an exemption, whether you got coverage through an Obamacare marketplace and whether you got a tax credit to help defray the cost. The law's new tax payments and credits will also be on returns, of course. In 2015, Crusberg said, the IRS will start collecting coverage information from insurance providers. Employers who insure their own workers in-house will report which employees are enrolled and give enough information so the IRS can tell if those workers are due a tax credit. Self-insuring employers will also put the cost of the plan they're providing on W-2 forms so workers can see it. Is the new data ""private"" information? Per the CMS fact sheet, Obamacare applicants could be asked to cough up some personal health information. But the fact sheet also says the marketplaces' systems ""will not store this information"" -- which casts some doubt on whether the government is really ""collecting"" it, but serves as an indication that it's considered sensitive. How about when the IRS asks where your insurance comes from, whether you got a tax credit for it and whether it meets the Obamacare law's standards? Generally, the IRS regards what you put on your tax return as private. For example, tax preparers who disclose such information without your consent can face criminal charges. Final IRS regulations governing who can disclose what tax return information to HHS under the Obamacare law were issued Aug. 13, 2013. An FAQ posted by the IRS that day said that ""officers and employees of the IRS will disclose to HHS, the Marketplace, and state agencies only, upon written request and subject to strict privacy and security rules, certain return information ... for the purpose of determining eligibility for certain health care affordability programs."" Our ruling Dewhurst said Obama wants ""more of Texans' private data."" The subset of Texans shopping for coverage through the online marketplace are providing additional private data for a reason: to ensure they're qualified. Dewhurst's statement overlooks these aspects. Regardless, many more Texans will be asked to give the IRS information about their health coverage that was previously not requested. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."

Ex Output:
"In altered photo, says Barack Obama wants ""more of Texans' private data"" via health care."

Ex Input:
"On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League's evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there's evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don't, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it's possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach."

Ex Output:
A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.

Ex Input:
Although the peer-reviewed study on which this story seems to have been based on makes the point that text messages could offer a low-cost strategy for reducing the chances of subsequent heart attacks, the story does not reflect on cost. A clear and readable chart in the story quantifiesthe apparent benefits of these text messages. But what's missing here is some nuance:The control group saw a rise in blood pressure, whereas the experimental group remained relatively the sametheir blood pressure didn't actually get lower. So, does that even translate to an actual reduced heart disease risk? And does any of this actually prevent heart attacks? These unanswered questions could have been better emphasized. The concept of "harm" does not appear to be relevant here. Individuals may find text messages to be annoying, of course, but the study itself notes that participants "overwhelmingly" reacted positively to the intervention. That doesn't make it into the story. The story makes it clear that the study utilized an experimental and a control group, and that this study duration was longer than past studies. Yetthe headlinesuggests that text messages can"prevent" heart attacks. The study offers no evidence for that link: There was no measurement of heart attack rates between groups. Instead, they measured several surrogate markers associated with heart disease, such as lipid levels and blood pressure. This should have been stressed. Repeat heart attacks are relatively common, making continued, at-home treatment of heart attack victims important. The story clearly identifies one source as the leader of the study and includes a second source who appears to be independent of the research. Funding sources are missing from the story, but the study's declarations of funding do not seem eyebrow-raising. The story doesmention some other interventions used to prevent heart attacks, such astypical medications taken to lower blood pressure or cholesterol. The story explains that the study leader is now involved in an effort to replicate her results, which implies that the treatment regimen is not available at present. However, studies of social media and apps used to promote healthy behaviorsare ubiquitous, soit mighthave been useful for the reporter to explore the availability of this strategy compared to others on the market now. The text does a decent job of explaining the novel aspects of the study compared to some similar efforts, though more could have been included on the results of the previous research. Also, since this particular study was actually published nearly a year ago, in September 2015, an effort to update our understanding of message effects would seem to make sense. We weren't able to locate a news release, but the inclusion of an independent source in the story is a reliable indicator that the story didn't rely onone.

Ex Output:
How to Prevent a Heart Attack: Text Patients on Healthy Habits