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: Though the article does not mention costs or compare costs of garlic and garlic supplements with other treatments,many readers will be familiar with these. The story reports that the consumption of garlic in any of three forms (raw, powdered supplement, aged extract supplement) had no effect on LDL cholesterol or triglycerides. To quantify this non-effect in mm/dL is unnecessary, and would have been numbing for the average health news consumer. A majority (57%) of individuals in the trial who ate garlic-laced sandwiches reported bad breath and body odor, a "harm" the story neglected to mention. The article reflects an appreciation for the hierarchy of evidence, noting that "there was good evidence in test-tube and animal studies" that garlic could lower LDL cholesterol, and explains the randomization methods in the new clinical trial. No obvious elements of disease-mongering. The article cites four sources and provides sufficient information about their potential conflicts of interest. The article fails to mention alternative methods for lowering cholesterol, though many readers may be familiar with these (most prominently exercise, diet, and drugs). Most readers will be familiar with the availability of the health interventions studiedraw garlic and garlic supplements. The story rightly notes that garlic is not a new "treatment" for high cholesterol. No obvious use of text from a press release.
Example Output: Garlic powerless against cholesterol

Example Input: "On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League's evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there's evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University's Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don't, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it's possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach."
Example Output: A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.

Example Input: Ravalli County District Judge Jennifer Lint signed a temporary restraining order Friday that prohibits Gov. Steve Bullock and state health officials from enforcing emergency rules on flavored vaping products. They were set to take effect Tuesday. Lint was acting in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday by three vape shops and an industry group. They claim the 120-day ban is an overly restrictive reaction to a national outbreak of vaping-related illnesses and deaths they say is caused by illegal black-market products. Bullock's press secretary, Erin Loranger, told the Ravalli Republic that officials are reviewing the judge's ruling. The lawsuit was brought by the Montana Smoke Free Association, Freedom Vapes, Liberty Smoke and uBlaze Vapor said the ban could force more than 20 Montana businesses to close. The business owners said the pulmonary illnesses could be the result of the "illicit addition" of THC or marijuana products into legal vaping products. THC and marijuana are not included as ingredients in any of the products sold by the businesses involved in the lawsuit, according to the plaintiffs. The ban would not only harm the businesses, but also people who use e-cigarettes to quit tobacco products, the lawsuit said. In an affidavit filed in the lawsuit, Freedom Vapes owner Ron Marshall said that flavored vape juices comprise 95% of the products sold in his three stores and his business would not be able to survive without them. On Friday, he said that the lawsuit was about freedom and liberty. "If the governor can take away those liberties with a swipe of a pen, then what's next? If it's us today, who will it be tomorrow?" he said. Lint scheduled an Oct. 30 hearing to consider arguments about the future of the temporary ban. ___ Information from: Ravalli Republic , http://www.ravallirepublic.com
Example Output:
Montana judge halts temporary flavored vaping ban.