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'.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The verdict, in California Superior Court in Oakland, marks the latest defeat for the healthcare conglomerate facing more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide. J&J said it would appeal, citing "serious procedural and evidentiary errors" in the course of the trial, saying lawyers for the woman had fundamentally failed to show its baby powder contains asbestos. The company did not providefurther details of thealleged errors during the trial. "We respect the legal process and reiterate that jury verdicts are not medical, scientific or regulatory conclusions about a product," J&J said in a statement on Wednesday. The New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company denies that its talc causes cancer, saying numerous studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown that its talc is safe and asbestos-free. The lawsuit was brought by Terry Leavitt, who said she used Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower - another powder containing talc sold by J&J in the past - in the 1960s and 1970s and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017. It was the first of more than a dozen J&J talc cases scheduled for trial in 2019. The nine-week trial began on Jan. 7 and included testimony from nearly a dozen experts on both sides. The jury deliberated for two days before delivering its verdict, which was broadcast online by Courtroom View Network. Jurors found that J&J's talc-based products used by Leavitt were defective and that the company had failed to warn consumers of the health risks, awarding$29.4 million in damages to Leavitt and her husband. The jury declined to award punitive damages. "Yet another jury has rejected J&J's misleading claims that its talc was free of asbestos," said Moshe Maimon, a lawyer for Leavitt, in a statement on Wednesday. "The internal J&J documents that the jury saw, once more laid bare the shocking truth of decades of cover- up, deception and concealment by J&J." Leavitt's was the first talc case to go to trial since Reuters on Dec. 14 published a report detailing that J&J knew that the talc in its raw and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s into the early 2000s - test results it did not disclose to regulators or consumers. Leavitt's trial originally included J&J's talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, a unit of Imerys SE, as a co-defendant. CaliforniaSuperior Court JudgeBrad Seligman, who oversaw the trial,told jurors in February thatthe company was no longer part of the case after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection under the weight of the talc litigation, whichstayed lawsuits against it. While earlier talc lawsuits alleged talc itself causes ovarian cancer, plaintiffs' lawyers have more recently focused on arguing asbestos contamination in talc caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. In 11 cases so far alleging asbestos contamination in talc, three have resulted in wins for plaintiffs, awarding damages as high as $4.69 billion in a July 2018 multi-plaintiff ovarian cancer verdict. J&J won three other cases and another five ended in hung juries. J&J has appealed all of the plaintiff verdicts, and the company said it is confident the verdicts would be overturned on appeal. (Read the documents that sparked the investigation - here) Claim: Facebook post Says the CEO of Camping World told Trump supporters "Frankly, don't shop at my business."
[EX A]: 0

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Anti-smoking groups hailed the ban, which restricts sale and consumption of flavored vaping products immediately and does the same for menthol cigarettes starting June 1, 2020. "The Massachusetts law is a major milestone in the fight to reverse the worsening e-cigarette epidemic and stop tobacco companies from targeting and addicting kids with flavored products," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, which opposed the legislation, said it's exploring challenging the new law in court, or seeking other ways to change it. "Public health and safety has been dealt a blow by anti-tobacco crusaders exploiting a youth vaping crisis, and by lawmakers bypassing prudent policy-making," the group said in a statement. In recent months, Massachusetts and other states, including Michigan, Montana, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington, have temporarily banned or restricted the sale of vaping products. But Massachusetts is now the first with a broad, permanent ban in place on all flavored tobacco or nicotine vaping products, anti-smoking groups say. The new law specifically restricts sale of the products to licensed smoking bars such as cigar bars and hookah lounges, where they'll only be allowed to be consumed on-site. The restriction extends to menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco. It also places a 75% excise tax on nicotine vaping products, gives public health officials new authority to regulate the products and requires health insurers cover tobacco cessation counseling. Baker said he hopes other states adopt similar restrictions but argued that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration are the only ones that can address the issue comprehensively for the nation. "Sometimes someone has to go first," he said. "It's pretty clear there isn't going to be a federal policy on this anytime soon. So, in the absence of that, we had to act." President Donald Trump has promised for months to approve a national ban on most flavored e-cigarettes. But in recent weeks his administration has walked back that promise, cancelling a planned announcement of a ban in favor of private meetings with the vaping industry and medical professionals. Massachusetts' decision to extend the ban to menthols is unique. The mint flavor has typically been exempt from such restrictions because it's long been one of the most popular flavors. Menthols were omitted from legislation passed by the New York City Council on Tuesday after advocates, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, argued their inclusion could lead to harsh police enforcement in the black community. Studies have shown menthol cigarettes are consumed disproportionately by young people and minorities, and anti-tobacco groups and health experts have argued menthol has been marketed to African Americans. But there have been recent signs that reluctance to address menthols is waning. Boston health officials earlier this week prohibited the sale of menthols in convenience stores, and dozens of other communities in Massachusetts and California have taken steps to restrict menthols and other flavored cigarettes. State Attorney General Maura Healey and other supporters said that restricting menthols and other flavored tobacco products is critical because they've contributed to growth in the traditional smoking market, which in turn prompted the creation of flavored vaping products targeted at youths. The American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network said it hoped the new law sends a message to the industry. "More than 80% of teens who have ever used a tobacco product started with a flavored product, and the tobacco industry knows this," the organization said in an emailed statement. The legislation responds to growing concern about the health effects of vaping products, including deaths whose exact cause is still being investigated. Massachusetts health officials say there have been more than 200 suspected cases of vaping-related lung injury and three confirmed deaths in the state. In September, Baker declared a public health emergency and ordered a temporary ban on the sale of all vaping products flavored and unflavored. Baker said Wednesday he'll lift that ban a few weeks early on Dec. 11, when state health officials are expected to roll out additional regulations. The Tobacco Merchants Association, an industry group, didn't respond to an email seeking comment. But the Vapor Technology Association, which has challenged Massachusetts' temporary vaping ban in state court, said a better strategy than the ban would be raising the age to purchase tobacco and nicotine vapor products to 21 and to impose stricter marketing standards on companies. "A ban will drive people back to combustible cigarettes, the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the U.S., or lead to illegal sales with a new and larger black market," the organization said in a statement. __ Associated Press editor William J. Kole contributed to this report. Claim: No more menthol cigarettes: New ban on tobacco, vape flavors.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: On June 9 2020, Facebook user Xavier Dillingham sharedthe following Twitter screenshots, which purportedly showed Google search results for the terms "professional hairstyles men," "unprofessional hairstyles men,""professional hairstyles women," and "unprofessional hairstyles women":Dillingham included screenshots of tweets by @Denzel_Success and @dave_fieri with a visible date on one of June 6 2020:It's deeper than police brutality https://t.co/6bJKhJa1w3 DENZEL SMITH (@Denzel_Success) June 6, 2020Hold up pic.twitter.com/xBBR8OZ7Cr DAVE FIERI (@dave_fieri) June 6, 2020One of the screenshots visible in the Facebook post appeared to show at least one result specifically about the matter of Google's purported racial bias in organizing images of men's and women's "professional hairstyles" and "unprofessional hairstyles."When we searched "professional hairstyles men" on June 19 2020, the results were primarily of white men:As was a search for "professional hairstyles women":When we searched "unprofessional hairstyles men" and "unprofessional hairstyles women," the results appeared to have been altered by discourse on social media. For the second search, a number of collages appeared, along with links to content about bias in Google results:We also found discussions about the matter going back for years. On April 6 2016, Mic.com covered the same issue in an article titled "If You Google 'Unprofessional Hairstyles for Work,' These Are the Problematic Results," reporting that April 2016 results included versions of the same hairstyle for both searches:The people in a search for professional hairstyles are predominantly white. Conversely, people in searches for unprofessional are mostly black though for some reason, Elizabeth Banks as The Hunger Games' Effie Trinket makes a surprise appearance.Twitter user MalumDube pointed out the irony of a similar style worn by Rachel McAdams was somehow deemed "unprofessional" when worn by a black woman.British outletThe Guardian published an editorial about the April 2016 controversy, in which the author described clicking through some of the images and explained their occasional context:In the case of the great hair debate, Google Images seems to have taken many of the pictures of black women wearing the "unprofessional" hairstyles were from blogs, articles and Pinterest boards. Many of these are by people of colour explicitly discussing and protesting against racist attitudes to hair. One image led me to a post criticising Hampton University's ban on dreadlocks and cornrows; another was linked with a post celebrating natural hair and the "ridiculous" pressure to straighten it for the office; here's a rejection of the idea that big, natural curls are "distracting" in a newsroom.One thing was clear between the 2016 popularity of a Google image search for "unprofessional hair men/women" and "professional hair men/women" viral discourse in both instances appeared to influence the images returned by Google in both cases. Collages we found in the results on June 19 2020 often accompanied reporting on the Google results, pushing down what may have been earlier, accurately described results before tens of thousands of Google users tested the hypothesis.On June 10 2020, The Shade Room published a statement from Cathy Edwards, Vice President of Google Images, about the discussion. Edwards reiterated the claim that articles decrying descriptions of black women's natural hair as "unprofessional" made up some but not all of the images:Google spoke exclusively to us to explain these image results, which are usually linked to articles that are actually denouncing the biases that black men and women face when it comes to their hair and society's idea of what professional hair is supposed to look like."Our Google Images search systems rely on a number of factors, including word matching, to surface results," Cathy Edwards, VP of Google Images, tells us. "For many of the results, the words 'unprofessional hairstyles' appear in the articles, and many of these stories are rightly denouncing the discrimination people of color face when it comes to their hair."While the images may be alarming, for the purposes of clarity, Google has taken the liberty of adding captions to help people under the relevancy of the images."While we include captions to help people understand why these images are relevant to the query, we acknowledge that the association can be concerning and painful to see without the fuller context," Edwards said. "Ensuring that all people and communities are able to find helpful results in Google Images is something we care about deeply and are actively working to improve."Rating the veracity of the claim thatGoogle search results for the terms "professional hairstyles men," "unprofessional hairstyles men,""professional hairstyles women," and "unprofessional hairstyles women" demonstrated racial bias was difficult due in part to how viral the claim became. Facebook posts and tweets with tens of thousands of shares reshuffled the results, and Google could have changed their algorithms in the two-week period between the June 6 2020 tweets and our June 19 2020 fact check. It is true that some of the results remained (and were the subject of scrutiny in 2016), but the results we evaluated were influenced by the interest generated by the claims and other forces that remained invisible.Comments Claim: "If you Google ""unprofessional hairstyles for men"" and """"unprofessional hairstyles for women"" or ""professional hairstyles for men"" and ""professional hairstyles for women,"" results appeared to be racially biased."
[EX A]:
1