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: Trump even suggested Thursday that the release could have been intentional. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the clearinghouse for the web of U.S. spy agencies, said it had ruled out the virus being man-made but was still investigating the precise source of the global pandemic, which has killed more than 220,000 people worldwide. Though scientists suggest the likeliest origin of the pandemic remains natural, that it spread from an infected animal to a human, Trump claimed to have seen evidence to support the theory that the origin was an infectious disease lab in Wuhan, the epicenter of the Chinese outbreak. He said the U.S. now "is finding how it came out." "It's a terrible thing that happened," the president said. "Whether they made a mistake or whether it started off as a mistake and then they made another one, or did somebody do something on purpose." The intel statement said the federal agencies concur "with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified." "The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan." In recent days the Trump administration has sharpened its rhetoric on China, accusing the geopolitical foe and vital trading partner of failing to act swiftly enough to sound the alarm about the outbreak or to stop the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. U.S. officials have said the Chinese government should "pay a price" for its handling of the pandemic. This all comes as the pace of Trump's own original response continues to come under scrutiny, questioned as too meager and too slow. Earlier Thursday, before Trump's comments, the Chinese government said that any claims that the coronavirus was released from a laboratory are "unfounded and purely fabricated out of nothing." Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang cited the institute's director, Yuan Zhiming, as saying the lab strictly implements bio-security procedures that would prevent the release of any pathogen. "I would like to point out again that the origin of the virus is a complex scientific issue, and it should be studied by scientists and professionals," Geng said. He also criticized those in the U.S. who say China should be held accountable for the global pandemic, saying they should spend their time on "better controlling the epidemic situation at home." At the White House, Trump repeatedly blamed China for its handling of the outbreak, criticizing the country for restricting domestic travel to slow the virus but not international travel to keep it from spreading abroad. "Certainly it could have been stopped," Trump said during an event in the East Room on his administration's efforts to aid seniors during the outbreak. "They either couldn't do it from a competence standpoint, or they let it spread." "It got loose, let's say, and they could have capped it." Earlier this month, Trump addressed the lab theory saying, "More and more, we're hearing the story." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added at the time, "The mere fact that we don't know the answers that China hasn't shared the answers I think is very, very telling." Pompeo also pressed China to let outside experts into the lab "so that we can determine precisely where this virus began." While Trump and Pompeo have made their feelings clear, a U.S. intelligence official disputed the notion that there was pressure on agencies to bolster a particular theory. The intelligence official was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue and spoke only on condition of anonymity. Scientists say the virus arose naturally in bats. Even so, Pompeo and others have pointed fingers at an institute that is run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It has done groundbreaking research tracing the likely origins of the SARS virus, finding new bat viruses and discovering how they could jump to people. "We know that there is the Wuhan Institute of Virology just a handful of miles away from where the wet market was," Pompeo said two weeks ago. The institute has an address 8 miles, or 13 kilometers, from the market that is considered a possible source. U.S. officials say the American Embassy in Beijing flagged concerns about potential safety issues at the lab in Wuhan in 2018, but they have yet to find any evidence the virus originated there nearly two years later. Scientists studying the virus for months have made clear they believe it wasn't man-made but are still working to determine a point at which it may have jumped from animals to humans. Early attention focused on the live-animal market in Wuhan where the first cases were reported in December. But the first person identified with the disease had no known connection to that market. Kristian Andersen, who studies the virus at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, puts the odds of it being accidentally released by the Wuhan lab at "a million to one," far less likely than an infection in nature. But virus expert David O'Connor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said he thinks too little is known to rule out any source, except the idea the virus was man-made. Finding the source is important, he said, because it may harbor the next pandemic virus. The U.S. was providing funding to the Wuhan lab for its research on coronaviruses, Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the CIA, said Thursday. He said State Department cables indicate that there have been concerns in past years among U.S. officials about the safety protocols at that lab. If the virus did escape from a Chinese lab, it not only reflects negatively on China but also on the United States for providing research funding to a lab that has safety concerns, Morell said during an online forum hosted by the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy and International Security at George Mason University. "So if it did escape, we're all in this together," Morell said. "This is not a gotcha for China. This is a gotcha for both of us." ___ Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Washington and Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report.

Output: Trump speculates that China released virus in lab 'mistake'.

Input: Consider Input: While there was no mention of coffee cost, this element is not particulary germane to this story. The article reported that drinking four eight-ounce cups of coffee was linked to a 30% reduction in the risk of developing diabetes. Rather than relative reduction, the article should have included the absolute reduction. The rate at which women who drank coffee developed type II diabetes was 6.05% while the rate in women who drank 4-5 cups of coffee per day was 4.30%. The relative difference always sounds more convincing; the absolute difference is what is probably most meaningful to viewers. So, in this case, a 30% relative difference equated to an absolute difference of less than 2%. There was no mention of potential harms that might be derived from increased coffee consumption. The article could have included concern about disrupted sleep, heart palpitations, increased urinary frequency, and jitteriness. Because of the design of the study covered in this story (a prospective epidemiologic study), it is not possible to conclude that increasing decaffeinated coffee consumption will decrease the risk of type II diabetes. This important point was covered by one of the physician quotes in the story. The speculation about what was in decaf coffee that resulted in the decreased risk of type II diabetes was not well grounded. Other than painting perhaps a little too rosy picture of all the potential benefits that might be gained from coffee consumption, this article did not practice disease mongering. It did not present any data on the prevalence of type II diabetes. The story could have mentioned that the Type II diabetes has become rather common place and is a public health issue. It appears that this story is based on a research study in the Archives of Internal Medicine and from comments by one physician and one researcher. It certainly would have been better to actually mention where the study was published rather than referring to it as "the study out today". It would also have been better to give us some perspective about the value of the quotes provided by giving some background on the two people interviewed. Nonethless, we credit the story for having different perspectives. There was no mention of other lifestyle strategies that an individual might pursue in order to lower the risk of type II diabetes. This is a particularly important public health message. Moderate daily physical activity, such as walking, has also been shown to lower the risk of type II diabetes. The story isn't about a treatment per se, but about the effects of drinking coffee, which is readily available to all. The story is quite clear about the widespread availability and use of coffee. There is a growing body of literature suggesting that coffee drinking can lower one's risk of type II diabetes. This story covered the latest such evidence, and made it clear that this is part of a growing body of "more intriguing evidence." There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.

Output: Coffee found to reduce risk of diabetes

Input: Consider Input: The study in the journal Health Affairs comes as legislation to curb drug costs for seniors languishes in Congress and the growing financial exposure of patients with insurance is getting more attention in the nation's health care debates. The survey findings were a surprise to researchers, since Medicare is considered relatively good coverage and most people have supplemental insurance to fill its gaps. After drug costs, the most often cited issues were hospital bills, ambulance rides and emergency visits. "It points to a real issue that has gone under the radar," said Tricia Neuman, a Medicare expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation who was not involved with the study and reviewed it for The Associated Press. "Survey after survey shows that people are satisfied with Medicare, but this analysis shows that people with Medicare who have serious health problems can face very high out-of-pocket costs, and that's an issue that hasn't gotten much attention." All told, 53% of seriously ill Medicare patients said they had major trouble paying their medical bills. More than a third reported using all or most of their savings to pay medical bills, 27% said they were contacted by a collection agency and 23% were unable to pay for basics such as food, heat and housing. Nearly half (45 reported emotional or psychological distress, and 1 in 4 said their medical costs had become a major burden on their families. "We did not expect to see this extent of financial hardship in the Medicare population," said Michael Anne Kyle, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate at Harvard University. She said lawmakers may need to devote more attention to the needs of Medicare beneficiaries with catastrophic costs. "Out-of-pocket costs are very concentrated," Kyle said. "The sickest population is also getting the biggest bills. Especially if you are sick over time, you are slowly draining your bank account." The study defined seriously ill people as those with a condition that over the past three years required two or more hospitalizations and visits to three or more doctors. Included in the study were Medicare recipients 65 and older as well as younger beneficiaries who qualified for coverage because of disability. Over half had seen five to nine doctors in the past three years. Among the most prevalent conditions were heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Thirty percent reported that the cost of prescription drugs was their major hardship. Legislation to curb the costs of medicines for seniors has advanced this year in Congress, but it's unclear if it can pass because the House and Senate remain far apart. House Democrats want Medicare to directly negotiate prices for the costliest drugs a nonstarter for Senate Republicans. However, there is widespread agreement on putting an annual out-of-pocket limit on drug costs for Medicare enrollees. Although President Donald Trump wants a bill, the House impeachment inquiry has overshadowed efforts to move legislation. As a candidate, Trump had backed Medicare drug price negotiations. It's uncertain if the White House will try to find a compromise now between the House and Senate positions. A second study out Monday also called attention to seniors' out-of-pocket costs. Focusing on people with traditional Medicare, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the average enrollee spent $5,460 out of their own pocket for health care in 2016, counting premiums and medical services. That figure also included long-term care costs. The average was lower $4,519 for people living in their communities and not in institutions. The Health Affairs study was based on a 2018 national survey of people of any age who suffered from a serious illness. Researchers decided to go back and take a closer at the Medicare group because of the unexpectedly high degree of problems. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.6 percentage points.
Output: 1 in 2 seriously ill Medicare enrollees struggles with bills.