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.

Example Input: "Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supporters and opponents of gun control have thrown out statistics to support their point of view. Here's one that caught our eye, offered by liberal commentator Mark Shields on the Dec. 21, 2012, edition of the PBS NewsHour. Shields told host Judy Woodruff, ""You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted."" Is the death toll that high? Let's examine each half of his comparison. Deaths from warfare We found a comprehensive study of war-related deaths published by the Congressional Research Service on Feb. 26, 2010, and we supplemented that with data for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan using the website icasualties.org. Where possible, we've used the broadest definition of ""death"" -- that is, all war-related deaths, not just those that occurred in combat. Here's a summary of deaths by major conflict: 4,435 2,260 13,283 525,000 2,446 116,516 405,399 36,574 58,220 383 2,175 4,486 1,171,177 Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference. Gunfire deaths The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We've added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC. Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms: We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths -- not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone. When we rated a previous Facebook post, we lowered an otherwise claim because it said that ""nearly 100,000 people get shot every year."" We found that the number of gun deaths and non-fatal injuries added up to 104,852, but we concluded that the term ""get shot"" could suggest victims who got shot by someone else rather than by their own hand. We don't see a similar problem with the way Shields' comment was phrased -- namely, ""died from gunfire."" Our ruling Since Shields' comparison was otherwise accurate, with about 1.4 million firearm deaths to 1.2 million in war."
Example Output: "Since 1968, ""more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the wars of this country's history."

Example Input: But the number of people in intensive care units fell to 6,730 from 6,821 over 24 hours - declining for a sixth consecutive day, suggesting the national lockdown put in place on March 17 is having some success in containing the disease. On Monday, President Emmanuel Macron announced a second extension of this lockdown until May 11, saying that progress had been made but also that the country had not been sufficiently prepared early on to surmount the challenges posed by the outbreak of the new coronavirus. Jerome Salomon, head of the public health authority, told a news conference that the number of COVID-19 deaths in French hospitals and nursing homes had risen by 5% in a day to a cumulative total of 15,729, versus 4% on Monday and Sunday. He added that the total number of confirmed infections had climbed by 5.3% to 103,573, compared to a rate of increase of 2.8% on Monday and of 1.7% on Sunday. There were also 26,680 suspected coronavirus cases in nursing homes, taking the total to more than 130,000 confirmed and possible cases, the fifth highest in the world. According to various running simulations, Salomon said that, depending on calculations for different regions, 5%-10% of the French population had probably contracted the disease.
Example Output: France's rate of coronavirus infections, deaths accelerating again.

Example Input: We'll rule this not applicable because, in general, most people have ballpark knowledge of how much chocolate costs. The story did not mention that dark chocolate is typically more expensive than milk chocolate especially for the premium brands with very high concentrations of cocoa solids. A brief explanation would have been helpful. The story went the extra mile here, providing theabsolute rates of stroke seen in the groups consuming the lowest and highest quantities of chocolate. "Among those with the highest weekly chocolate intake more than 45 grams there were 2.5 strokes per 1,000 women per year. That figure was 7.8 per 1,000 among women who ate the least (less than 8.9 grams per week)." These statistics weren't provided in the study text, suggesting that the writer made the calculations based on data contained in one of the study tables. We applaud theextra effort made to provide meaningful statistics to readers! Close call here, but the story goes a step further than WebMD when discussing the possibleadverse effects of consuming too much chocolate. In addition to warning that chocolate has a lot of fat, sugar and calories, it explicitly notes that eating too much of it"could be counterproductive." WebMD offers no comparable warning and suggests that eating more chocolate thanwasconsumed in this study wouldresult in similarhealth benefits. This story was much more cautious in its depiction of the findings than the competing WebMD coverage. Most important, it was careful to explain high up that the study found only a correlation between chocolate intake and lower stroke risk. As one of the study authors explains: "Given the observational design of the study, findings from this study cannot prove that it's chocolate that lowers the risk of stroke." We also appreciate the story's more nuanced language regarding which constituents of chocolate might be responsible for possible benefits. Whereas WebMD states unequivocally that flavonoids and antioxidants "deserve the credit" for these benefits, Reuterssays more judiciously thatflavonoids "may be responsible for chocolate's apparent effects on health." [Emphasis ours.] "Whether that theoretical benefit translates into real-life benefits remains to be proven by rigorous studies, however," Reuters appropriately adds. There was no disease-mongering. This was the only major shortcoming no independent perspective. An expert in epidemiology might havepointed out,for example,that the data on chocolate consumption were collected fromsubject self-reports, and therefore should be viewed cautiously. The availability of chocolate is not in question. The story appropriately notes that there is a stronger statistical association with dark chocolate as opposed to milk chocolate. The story notes that previous research has linked higher levels of chocolate consumption with improved heart health. The story includes comments attributed to a direct email from one of the study authors, sowe can confirm our overall impression that this story wasn't basedon apress release.
Example Output:
Chocolate lovers have fewer strokes, study finds