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 Input:
Paragraph: In April 2016, the web site MetaSpoon published a blogpost(titled: "He Pours Boiling Water On An Apple From The Grocery Store. Watch What Appears On The Skin GROSS!") which held that the wax used to preserve fruits are riddled with pesticides: Apples are so healthy and delicious, it really is no wonder that they're such a popular snack. All you have to do is give them a quick wash and pack them, right? After watching this video, maybe not. Apparently, many producers will coat their apples with wax to help preserve the fruit. This is particularly true for apples found at grocery stores. Some experts say that wax is harmless, as it's not digested by our system. But others argue that the real danger lies in the pesticide residue that the wax may have trapped in. Next time you buy apples, it might be worth finding out just how much wax coating there is. Want to get rid of the wax? Try scrubbing your apples in a bath of warm water, lemon juice, and baking soda! The postlinked toa January 2016 YouTube video, during which a person uses boiling water to remove the wax from apples. That person claimed waxed apples cause cancer: Be Careful when eating apples. Please don't eat the skin of the apples because it's coated with wax. Check before you eat many of the fruits. Wax is being used for preservation purposes and cold storage. You might be surprised especially apples from USA and other parts are more than one year old, though it would look fresh. Becox wax is coated, preventing bacteria to enter. So it does not get dry. Please Eat Apples after removing the wax. In the clip, the individual gave no information to substantiate the claim. He also noted that the apples "changed color" when exposed to boiling water, a procedure familiarto manyviewers, and which is most commonly described as "cooking." (Apples arenot the only fruits that darken in color when exposed to direct and sustained heat.) The clip's initial fallacy hinged on the implication that wax on apples was a little-known secret. However, according totheFood and Drug Administration, waxed produce iswidely, openly available and safe [PDF]: Many vegetables and fruits make their own natural waxy coating. After harvest, fresh produce may be washed to clean off dirt and soil but such washing also removes the natural wax. Therefore, waxes are applied to some produce to replace the natural waxes that are lost. Wax coatings help retain moisture to maintain quality from farm to table Waxes also help inhibit mold growth, protect produce from bruising, prevent other physical damage and disease, and enhance appearance[.] The Produce Marketing Association (an international trade group) reiterated the FDA's explanation of waxed apples and other produce items. The PMA also explained that the substances used are alwayssubject to strict FDA scrutiny, and are safe to eat even when whitened due to exposure to extreme temperatures. That document outlined guidelines for use of wax on produce in general: Many fresh fruits and vegetables make their own natural waxy coating to help retain moisture. Extensive washing at the packinghouse removes this natural wax, so waxes are applied to some produce items to replace the natural ones that are lost. Each piece of waxed produce only has a drop or two of wax. Waxes may be mixed with water or other wetting agents to ensure they are applied thinly and evenly. Waxes help retain the fruit's or vegetable's moisture during shipping and marketing. Waxes also help to inhibit mold growth, to protect fruits and vegetables from bruising, to prevent other physical damage and disease, and to enhance appearance. By protecting against moisture loss, wax coatings help fresh fruits and vegetables maintain wholesomeness and freshness. Waxing does not improve the quality of any inferior fruit or vegetables; rather, waxing along with proper handling contributes to maintaining a healthful product Commodities that may have coatings applied include apples, avocados, bell peppers, cantaloupes, cucumbers, eggplants, grapefruits, lemons, limes, melons, oranges, parsnips, passion fruit, peaches, pineapples, pumpkins, rutabagas, squash, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, turnips, and yucca. However, they are not always waxed. Waxes by themselves do not control decay; rather, they may be combined with some chemicals to prevent the growth of mold. The safety and use of these substances are strictly regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coatings used on fruits and vegetables must meet the food additive regulations of the FDA. Extensive research by governmental and scientific authorities has shown that approved waxes are safe to eat. Waxes are indigestible, which means they go through the body without breaking down or being absorbed. FDA requires wax labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables that have been treated with postharvest wax or resin coatings. Consumers will see signs in produce departments that read: "Coated with food-grade vegetable-, petroleum-, beeswax-, and/or shellac-based wax or resin, to maintain freshness" followed by a list of the commodity (-ies) coated with these waxes or resins). In today's marketplace, none of these coatings is animal-based, and they all come from natural sources. Packaged fresh fruits and vegetables that have information on the label (such as the product name, weight or brand) must also be labeled for wax or resin coatings by the packer, repacker, or shipper. The topic also was addressed by food safety experts at Best Food Facts. According to theiranalysis, not only do apples often produce their own wax (dependent on crop variables), but that an apple's natural wax contained a component that inhibits (not encourages) cancer cell growth: Remember, apples are alive even after they are picked and will continue to live, provided they have the sufficient resources and an acceptable environment. The waxy coating produced by the apple and found on its skin protects it. The waxy coating can appear milky sometimes, but if you rub it gently, you can actually get it to it shine. The natural wax on the fruit of the apple contains about fifty individual components belonging to at least half a dozen chemical groups. The major cyclic component of apple fruit wax is called ursolic acid and is highly water-repellent. Research has shown that ursolic acid is capable of inhibiting various types of cancer cells and can serve as a starting material for synthesis of more potent bioactive compounds such as antitumor agents. Apples weren't always coated with additional wax, as they often areharvested with a natural coating of wax. However, all wax used on apples issubject to FDA guidelines for food safe additives, and none of the "waxed apples cause cancer" claims we found includeda single known carcinogen commonly used in the process. Waxing apples iswidely deemed both a safe and often natural occurrence, and the use of wax to coat apples is neither a secret nor credible health risk. While there are some credible concerns about harmful pesticides caught in the wax used to coat apples and other fruits and vegetables, there are easy ways to avoid or minimize the risk of ingesting them. According to the National Pesticide Information Center, a collaborative effort between Oregon State University and the Environmental Protection Agency, most pesticide residues can be removed by rinsing fruits with water or scrubbing them with a soft brush. More information about what pesticides are in the food supply and how to avoid them can be found in this March 2015report. However, theoverall risks of pesticide residue are quite low, even with conventionally grown produce, and since the Food Quality Protection Act was passed in 1996, very tightly regulated in the United States. However,wax on an apple is not a visual representation of trapped pesticides, nor is it an indication that any chemicals or toxic substances are present. Claim: Waxed apples cause cancer.

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: In January 2016, an event primarily dubbed the "Flint water crisis" (involving lead contamination in the city's water supply at levels that posed a serious health danger) garnered national headlines. Although some details were murky as the situation unfolded, a number of items related to the crisis were circulated worldwide via social media. The undisputed core of the public health crisis was summed up by theNew York Times' report that"[h]igh levels of lead had leached from pipes into the water supply" in Flint in a period beginning around April 2014: Among the items related to the water crisis that circulated online was a piece fromthe Free Thought Project titled "Flint Residents Told That Their Children Could Be Taken Away If They Don't Pay for City's Poison Water": There is no denying that the water in Flint is undrinkable and that it is contaminated with lead and other substances, and it is clear that the government of Flint is responsible for the problem. However, the city's government continues to charge people for the poison water and then threatening to foreclose their home or take their children if they refuse to pay. Michigan law states that parents are neglectful if they do not have running water in their home, and if they chose not to pay for water they can't drink anyway, then they could be guilty of child endangerment. Activists in Flint say that some residents have already received similar threats from the government if they refuse to pay their bills Flint residents have recently filed two class action lawsuits calling for all water bills since April of 2014 to be considered null and void because of the fact that the water was poisonous. "Essentially, the residents have been getting billed for water that they cannot use. Because of that, we do not feel that is a fair way to treat the residents," [attorney Trachelle] Young addedDespite the fact that the issue is obviously the government's responsibility, they have made it illegal for people to sell their homes because of the fact that they are known to carry contaminated water. Meanwhile, residents are still left to purchase bottled water on their own, in addition to paying their water bill. The article confusingly vacillated between assertions supported by a largely undisputed chain of events (i.e., the water supply in Flint had been compromised for some time, and its effect on families was severe) with alarming but unsubstantiated claims (i.e., CPS was threatening to remove children affected by the crisis). The headline clearly stated that residents of Flint had been threatened with the intervention of Michigan's Children'sProtective Services (CPS) agency if they refused to pay for water that was clearly not potable, but we were unable to locate any other account reporting on what would be an extraordinary scenario. The Free Thought Project excerpt reproduced above was the sole source for this otherwise uncited claim. A careful reading of the text suggests that the site perhaps extrapolated two unrelated factual items to form a third hypothetical conclusion: It was true the Flint water crisis was unresolved at the time the article was published, and that Michigan's Department of Health & Human Services' (MDHHS) list of possible red flags for child abuse or neglectallows the inferencethat a lack of running water in a home is grounds for investigation and removal of children. Page 15 of a publicly available document titled "MandatedReporters' Resource Guide" [PDF] further describes scenarios under which mandated reporters are obligated to contact CPS and file a report. Appendix 2, Section I(physical neglect), portion A pertains to neglect with respect to living conditions: under a list of items by which mandated reporters can observe potential conditions of neglect, "running water in the home" is listed as a potential signifier. As such, the above-excerpted item quite possibly extrapolated its conclusion based on the existence of the Flint water crisis and demonstratedstandards of child abuse and neglect evidenced by Michigan's documentation of those criteria. If so, the item made a significant leap between something that could conceivably happen (children's being removed from homes due to a lack of running water under normal circumstances) and something that might be far less likely to happen (CPS' tasking itself with imposing upon the crisis in the city of Flint by using its scant resources to target families and children already burdened by an ongoing and unprecedented contaminationof Flint'swater supply). We were unable to findany other reporting of such claims aside from ones citingThe Free Thought Project, nor could we locate any independent, anecdotal reports claiming that CPS was removing children from homes "without running water" in Flint. We contacted several divisions of MDHHS to determine whether there was any truth to the claim that CPS has removed children for reasons directly related to the Flint water crisis, or whether any such information or demands had been transmitted to families in Flint with respect to the water crisis. Under normal circumstances, the lack of running water in a home could certainly serve as grounds to initiate an investigation or even trigger removal of children from their home until basic living conditions are restored to the satisfaction of agencies tasked with ensuring children are safe from abusive or neglectful homes. Given widespread coverage of the Flint water crisis and its ongoing nature, the assertion doesn't make much plausible sense (nor does it seem likely CPS could have the manpower to engage in such a large undertaking). The existence of such a crisis in Flint and its effect on the city's residents are not in dispute and reasonably warrant alarm, but unsupported claims exacerbating concern and anxiety are not helpful to the residents of Flint orother people seeking credible information about the extent of an ongoing public health incident. In response to our inquiry, a representative fromMichigan's Department of Health & Human Services confirmed children are not removed from homes solely due to a lack of running water (due to the current situation in Flint, or otherwise): We do not petition a court for removal solely because of lack of water. Instead CPS works to make sure the children have water by having them apply for State Emergency Relief, or making sure they have access to water at a relatives' home or bottled water. On 26 January 2016,MDHHS Children's Services Agency provided us with a statement from executive directorSteve Yager. Yager's statement confirmedno such complaints or removals occurred due to the Flint water crisis: MDHHS has not assigned a single Children's Protective Services complaint due to any issues related to Flint water. MDHHS works proactively to assist families whose water is shut off and to ensure families have water filters and bottled water in Flint. When a family is without water, our goal is to help that family provide clean water for their children. That can be through assisting families in applying for State Emergency Relief, setting up plans for children to access safe water at a relative's home or providing bottled water. We do not petition the court to remove a child solely for the lack of water in a family's home. We also contactedthe author of the originalThe Free Thought Project article for additional information supporting the claim. He directed us to the above-quoted MDHHSguidelines, as well asthe article's embeddedRTvideo. In that clip,a Flint resident speculatedthat refusal to pay water bills could result in the eventual removal of children due to a lack of running water in the home: Claim: Residents of Flint, Michigan have been threatened by CPS with removal of their children if they refuse to pay for contaminated water.

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "If the current coronavirus were really the same as the common cold, why would it be causing some people to die, stock markets to reel and stadiums to go empty? And yet, claims likening coronavirus to the common cold persist, including in a Facebook post that says: ""The coronavirus: The Democrats are using it to promote fear. The Chinese are using it to control protestors. And all along it's simply the common cold."" Gesundheit, but we've been here before. The 2019 coronavirus belongs to a family of viruses that includes the common cold, but the two are not the same. This Facebook post is wrong. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Since the outbreak of the new coronavirus disease, officially known as COVID-19, in Wuhan, China, in December, we've fact-checked several claims that aim to downplay the severity of the virus and to blame the media, politicians or pharmaceutical companies for drawing attention to it. One such claim came from conservative radio talk show host and recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh, who said the coronavirus is the common cold. Our rating was . As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a ""beta coronavirus"" similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains ""usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold."" But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. ""This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,"" it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick." Claim: The coronavirus is "simply the common cold."

Ex Output:
0