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.

Input: Consider Input: The Idaho State Journal reports that last year there were nearly 6,600 STD cases, including HIV, up from fewer than 6,300 in 2016. Cases are also up nationally, with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcing last week that nearly 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were diagnosed in the United States in 2017. Kimberly Matulonis-Edgar of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare says experts in the state and across the country are struggling to understand what's driving the increase. The most prevalent STDs reported nationally and in Idaho are gonorrhea and chlamydia. State health officials say that the rate of reported gonorrhea cases in Southeast Idaho fell about 14 percent from a year ago, but jumped more than 200 percent in south-central Idaho. ___ Information from: Idaho State Journal, http://www.journalnet.com

Output: Health experts alarmed by jump in STDs in Idaho.

Input: Consider Input: But as other Democrats already in the race endorse "Medicare-for-all," Hickenlooper told a crowd at a New Hampshire college that it was more important now to get behind the general idea rather than argue over a specific approach. "I reject the notion that it should become a litmus test of what it takes to be a good Democrat," said Hickenlooper, who expanded Medicaid while governor and has teamed with former Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, on a health care overhaul. The onetime Denver mayor, who's considered a centrist politician, said after holding a town hall that he will not decide for several more weeks whether to join the crowded 2020 contest. He took questions mostly from students and faculty on topics including student debt, the ballooning national debt and relations with American allies around the world. Hickenlooper said he was concerned that the push for "Medicare-for-all" calls for dismantling the current system when less disruptive measures may achieve universal health care. "There are so many different ways to cut the pie and work on the issue that we too often are trying to say, 'You're wrong, I'm right,' and this is even within the Democrat Party," he said. "It's more important to be unified and say we want universal coverage. We are not going to stop until we get universal coverage." With Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts already running, the challenge for Hickenlooper is showing he is liberal enough to compete. He cited liberal policies he enacted as governor dealing with methane emissions and teenage pregnancies and abortion. "In many ways, I'm a lot more progressive than a lot of these other folks," he asserted. Hickenlooper also insisted he would have no problem going up against President Donald Trump. "I grew up the skinny kid with thick glasses and a funny last name. I've dealt with bullies my whole life," he said. "The way to deal with a bully is you don't punch back and take them head on. You take what they say to you and ... you reframe it in a way that reveals the foolishness of what they're saying and the weakness and insecurity that they're demonstrating." After his New Hampshire swing, Hickenlooper is scheduled to give an address at the Global Security Conference in Munich this weekend about trade and the trans-Atlantic partnership. The trip would help burnish the former governor's foreign policy credentials ahead of any possible presidential campaign.

Output: Ex-Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper supports universal health care.

Input: Consider Input: There is no direct cost to bystander CPR, so this category is not applicable. The story does a good job of giving exact numbers of survivors who did and didn't receive CPR in the study. It provides exact survival times for ambulance arrivalsat 5, 10, and 13 minutes. These statistics are provided both in terms of percentagesand ratios. The intervention studied here involves a last-ditch emergency effort to revive a person who is dying. There are some potential harms if the resuscitated person survives, and the story didn't mention those, but given the measured approach of this story and the nature of the research, we feel this one is N/A. In this story, importantlimitations of study findings are explained to some degree, enough to be satisfactory. An author of the study is cited explaining that the findings do not definitely establish that CPR is actually the direct cause of the higher survival rates reported. The reason for that, unstated, is that this study reportsthecorrelation between cases in which bystander CPR was administered and patient survival rates. It wasn't an experiment that could prove one caused the otherthat could have been made clearer. Granted, at the end of the story we learn "the study is observational and doesn't prove bystander CPR increases survival odds, the authors note in Circulation. Researchers also lacked data on how quickly bystanders intervened after the start of cardiac arrest, which could influence outcomes, the authors note." But since some readers may not know what "observational" means, this could have been spelled out more. There is no disease mongering in the story. The story quotes two independent experts whose specific credentials are clearly presented. These sources are cited on the general mechanism of CPR and the importance of starting CPR early. Ideally, they'd also speak to the research itself, providing context on what the general public should know. But given that the story presents the research accurately, and included a discussion of limitations, this is a minor concern here. In a way this story is all about the alternative to bystander CPR: doing nothing until the ambulance arrives. There really isn't another alternative that could have been discussed. The story doesn't outright state that pretty much anybody is capable of performing CPR. However, it does imply that CPR is widely availableby explaining that the biggest barrier to bystander CPR is that too few people know how to do it. More explanation about how easy it is to learn the procedure (training can be done in just a few minutes) would have improved that aspect of the article. While the story doesn't make it explicitly clear what's novel, it does provide enough context for the reader to understand that this study builds upon past research that was more general. That's done via this quote: "We know from previous research that 1 in 8 people survive after a cardiac arrest if a bystander initiates CPR before the arrival of the emergency medical services," Rajan said by email. "In contrast, if CPR is not initiated before the arrival of the emergency medical services, only 1 in 30 people survive a cardiac arrest." The story does not appear to be based solely on a press release. It quotes two experts who were not involved in the study.
Output: Bystander CPR may boost survival odds when ambulance delayed