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:
Alexis Shapiro suffered damage to her pituitary gland, which helps regulate weight, as a result of the brain disease. She has gained about 140 pounds (63.5 kgs) in less than two years because of the problem, her mother said. Her extreme excess of body fat is clinically defined as morbid obesity. "It has been heartbreaking for her and for us. She cannot do the things she used to love," Jennifer Shapiro, her mother, said on the fundraising site GoFundMe. The mother said she is seeking about $50,000 for life-saving surgery to reduce the size of her daughter's stomach because the family's insurance company will not pay for the procedure unless the patient is at least 18 or has achieved full bone growth. Dr. Thomas Inge, a specialist in pediatric obesity at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, told NBC News that Alexis could receive the surgery at the hospital where he works within six weeks now that the funding appears to be in place. "Alexis will be seen this week in Cincinnati, and the preparations for surgery will be made at that time," Inge told Reuters by email.

Ex Output:
Donors pitch in to pay for surgery for extremely obese Texas girl.

Ex Input:
"The Republican Party of Texas marveled not in a good way at an admission of sorts by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the long-stalled health care overhaul before Congress. According to an e-mail the GOP sent Friday, Pelosi said "the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it." Talk about a banana-peel moment. Did Pelosi improbably denigrate her party's promised legislation and say people can find out what's in it after it passes? GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi's March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. We learned, for starters, that while the Texas GOP thinks the legislation is terrible, Pelosi clearly doesn't. Instead, Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, "robust support for public health infrastructure," more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits. She summarizes: "It's going to be very, very exciting." Yet there's heft to the GOP's claim that Pelosi said the legislation has to pass so people can find out what's in it. Pelosi adds: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." Pelosi's words stirred critics from the right including Marguerite Higgins, a senior editorial services associate at The Heritage Foundation. In a blog, Higgins named the moment the video of the week and called Pelosi's statement a "stunning demonstration of political condescension." Separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly offered this interpretation of Pelosi's comment: ""She meant there was so much talk about process (in Congress) that people have lost sight of what's actually in the bill. Once it's passed, we can remind them of all the good things that are in it."" Capital fusses aside, we wondered if Pelosi spoke accurately; will the plan need to pass before people know what's in it? We called the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has posted side-by-side comparisons online of health care plans approved by the House and Senate. Its spokesman, Craig Palosky, reminded us that Congress posts the entire legislation online. Of course, that's not to say the final deal is settled or, it stands to reason, open to public view. Palosky declined to comment precisely on Pelosi's forecast, saying her comment seemed more about politics than policy. ""It's not our role to police such comments,"" he said. ""If you want to know what members of Congress are doing, you have to speak to members of Congress." His nudge led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal. Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors. Pelosi's ""right,"" Burgess said, though ""I don't think that's a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn't recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."" So how does the GOP's statement shake out? The party's e-mail errs when it makes it sound as if Pelosi thinks the health-care measure is terrible. It's very much the opposite. But it accurately quotes Pelosi as saying people will find out what's in the plan after it passes."

Ex Output:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.

Ex Input:
"Although the story mentions the cost of immunosuppressant drugs, the story does not mention the cost of the new transplant technique. Given the preliminary nature of the findings, it is not yet possible to quantify the benefits of the new transplantation technique. The story does not mention any potential harms of the therapy. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence. The story describes thestudies as ""preliminary"" and brings attention tothe very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as ""groundbreaking"" and ""breakthrough"" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of kidney disease. The story quotes multiple experts The story mentions immunosuppressants with traditional transplantation as the alternative to the new transplant technique. The story clearly states that the transplant technique is experimental and is only being performed in a handful of medical centers. The story clearly states that the treatment is a new approach. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."

Ex Output:
Some transplant patients OK without years of drug treatment