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 Q]: The story does include a discussion of price, reporting that a fluoride varnish treatment can cost $23 to $55, while a filling can cost $86 to $606. That's enough to be rated Satisfactory. However, the story also should have stated that those numbers aren't a head-to-head comparison, since the varnish treatment must be repeated many times over many yearswhich would add up. In fact,a cost-effectiveness analysis done by one of the quoted experts concluded the "Caries Management System" he advocates costs almost $1,800 for every cavity or lost tooth prevented. While the story includes links to some studies that report specific results, the only number reported in the story is a reduction in adult tooth fillings of 30 to 50 percent. But without any absolute numbers, this number isn't useful. Is it a cavity a year? A cavity a decade? The story refers to people at "high risk" for cavities, but does not define what that term means. Without some anchoring in absolute numbers, all readers are left with is a vague sense that preventive treatment is "better" for some people, without pinning down how much better or for whom. Fluoride for dental health has been extensively studied for decades and is considered safe, so we'll file this rating as not applicable to the story. But, as some dentists might point out, there is an argument to be made for discussing one knownthough minorrisk: Some people living in areas with naturally high levels of fluoride in their water may experience tooth discoloration or other issues if they are given additional fluoride treatment. The story portrays the evidence for fluoridetreatments as clear and convincing, when there are actually just a few studies, and a lot of expert opinion. That's not to say the experts quoted in the story are wrong, but the story elevates beliefs to the level of evidence-based conclusions. Cavities in adults can cause serious health problems if left untreated, and any new effective treatment or trends in this area is worthy of press coverage. However, the studiesdiscussedin the story focused on a relatively small group of people with unusually high risk of tooth decayand so these results may not apply to the adult population at large, which this piece implies. The story quotes a number of sources discussing this trend in dentistry, instead of just relying on one dentist. But the piece would be more balanced had it included at least one source pointing out that some of the techniques advocated in the story could be overkill or wasteful for many people who are at just average risk for tooth decay. As the piece was written, all the sources are very rosy about more aggressive preventive dental care. We also found via an internet search that sourceJohn Featherstonehas accepted consultation fees from dental companies that make products for these purposes. However, since he wasn't specifically endorsing one of these productsin this story,we'llgive this a pass. The story does not quantify the benefits of these new preventive treatments, or similar approaches, so it fails to give readers a useful comparison with standard dental care or advice for most adultssuch asfluoride toothpastes, community water fluoridation, flossing, and mouthwashes. It is clear that the treatments mentioned in the story are widely available, and we were pleased to see the story went a step further and let us know how insurance impacts availability. The story reports that the concepts are not new, and that fluoride varnishes have normally been the purview of pediatric dentistry, but are now catching on among adult dentists. However, it never really explains why practice would be changing nowdid research spur this change? There is a reference to "more effective preventive techniques," but it's not clear what that means, and how a reader might act on that. This piece doesn't appear to rely on a news release; the reporter interviewed a number of experts and referred to several publications.
[EX A]: No-Drill Dentistry: Fluoride Treatments Can Prevent Cavities In Adults

[EX Q]: The outbreak comes ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday in late January, when many of China's 1.4 billion people will be travelling to their home towns or abroad. The World Health Organization and Chinese authorities are taking steps to ensure the disease does not spread further. Thai health authorities said on Wednesday they were stepping up monitoring of passengers arriving at airports with infrared thermal scanners ahead of the holiday, when 800,000 Chinese tourists are expected to visit the country. Memories remain fresh in Asia of a 2002-2003 outbreak of SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which emerged in China and killed nearly 800 people worldwide. WHO has said there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the new coronavirus in China within families. And authorities in Wuhan confirmed on Wednesday that a married couple were among 41 people diagnosed with pneumonia believed to be caused by the new virus. There were no new cases or deaths at the end of Tuesday, the city's health authority said. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission did not say in the statement whether the couple represented an instance of human-to-human transmission. But it said the husband, who worked at a seafood market suspected of being at the epicentre of the outbreak, was the first to fall ill and that his wife did not have any exposure to the market. Some of the other people diagnosed also denied visiting the market, the commission said. The authorities in Wuhan also confirmed that a Chinese woman quarantined in Thailand, the first case of the mystery strain of coronavirus to be detected outside of China, had come from Wuhan. The State Department's notice referred to an alert by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urging citizens in China travelling to Wuhan to avoid contact with animals, animal markets or animal products, among other precautions. It also asked citizens those who had visited Wuhan and feel sick to seek medical care. The Wuhan health commission said in another statement issued late Wednesday that 7 of the 41 pneumonia patients have been released. The statement also said that 450 of the 763 people put under observation due to their close contact with known patients have been released.
[EX A]: U.S. warns citizens in China about pneumonia outbreak.

[EX Q]: All three stories at least mentioned the total amount of money being spent on nicotine replacement products or the growth in that spending. None of the stories actually explained how much these products cost or compared them to the costs of cigarettes. The cost of an 8-week regimen of nicotine patches is $160-200. The story was less successful than the other two in quantifying the benefits. It did not put any hard numbers to the findings, saying instead, "At each stage, about one-third of the people trying to quit had relapsed, the study found. The use of replacement products made no difference, whether they were taken for the recommended two-month period (they usually were not), or with the guidance of a cessation counselor. One subgroup, heavy smokers (defined as those who had their first cigarette within a half-hour of waking up) who used replacement products without counseling, was twice as likely to relapse as heavy smokers who did not use them." While using vague terms like "twice as likely" may make the story a little less daunting for some readers, we think that a story on a scientific study, especially a study as controversial as this one, should provide the actual numbers from the study as much as possible. Also, all three stories failed to make it clear whether the same 30% or so of people continued to relapse throughout the study or whether a total of two-thirds of the participants fell back to smoking. None of the stories mentioned the potential harms from taking nicotine, as opposed to quitting cold turkey. Nor did they mention the additional risks associated with continuing to smoke instead of making use of a more successful smoking cessation program that would actually help a smoker quit. As the leading risk factor for early death, smoking should be stopped as quickly and effectively as possible. As with the other two stories, this one provided the basic outlines of the study protocol, but, unlike the other two, it did not provide more than make a vague mention of a potential flaw in the study's design. None of the stories, either, made any attempt to discuss whether the previous evidence in favor of nicotine products could have been unduly influenced by the makers of the products. We did appreciate, though, that this story noted that earlier studies had shown "the products have proved effective, making it easier for people to quit, at least in the short term." This places the current study into perspective since it looked at long term outcomes at 5 years. We could go either way with this score, but we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. No disease mongering. This is the only one of the three stories we reviewed that did not quote someone directly connected to GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of some of the best selling tobacco replacement products. Several independent sources were quoted. The story lists a range of alternative factors for successful smoking cessation at the end of the piece: "Motivation matters a lot; so does a person's social environment, the amount of support from friends and family, and the rules enforced at the workplace. Media campaigns, increased tobacco taxes and tightening of smoking laws have all had an effect as well." This isn't quite a comparison with nicotine products, but we give the story credit for covering some of this territory. This story talks about the sales figures for nicotine products as one indication of widespread availability and use. The story does a great job pointing out how this study fits into the recent history of similar research into the topic. The story did not rely on any press release.
[EX A]:
Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt