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'.
Example: Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography&!1-positive recalls&biopsies were not included in the study,readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography&biopsies increase patient financial costs.This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating "Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a!1 alarm,a new study shows." Unfortunately the writer doesn't quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction.Instead,the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn't be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled.Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms&!1-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually.Part of the continuing controversy over screening mammography focuses on annual versus biennial screening.Because this study showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled&needing biopsies among women who are screened every other year,with no statistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer,the article should have emphasized those important findings.The piece states that the researchers noted that "!1 positive recalls may cause inconvenience&anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring." This article fails to include several important facts about the study.1)This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006.2)Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital.3)Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period.4)Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms.There was no disease mongering.No independent experts were quoted.The story did an adequate job comparing at a very high level annual screening versus biennial screening.Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States.The study did not examine a new procedure.There's no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release.
Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives
Example solution: 1
Example explanation: This article reports on the results of a study of nearly 170,0 women who had screening mammograms beginning between age 40-59.The study found that over ten years of screening mammograms,over half of the women will experience a!1-positive recall for additional mammography.In addition,7%-9%of the women will have a biopsy for a suspicious lump which is not cancerous.Both of those percentages decrease if the woman is screened every other year rather than every year.Even with biennial mammography,41%of women will experience a recall over 10 years of mammography.The study's Principal Investigator emphasized that "in most cases,a recall doesn't mean you have cancer." She hoped this knowledge would reduce the anxiety of women who are recalled.The story never explained the size of the decrease in the number of!1 positives between annual(61.3%) and biennial screening(41.6%).Our first two reviewers were a researcher who specializes in health decisions and a breast cancer survivor trained in evidence by the Natiional Breast Cancer Coalition's Project LEAD.This study is valuable because it helps to quantify and compare the harms of annual and biennial screening,specifically the number of!1 positives and the number of unnecessary biopsies.Prior to this study,estimates of!1 positive screening mammography rates varied widely.The critical question is whether you can do less frequent screening,subject women to fewer harms and get similar results in terms of detection of "early stage" cancer.This study's data seems to suggest that answer is yes.

Problem: Paragraph: In May 2016,photographs and messages reproduced above began circulating on Facebookalong with claims thatlurking underneath labels ofpricey salon-brand hair products purchased through discount retailers were cheaper, lower quality brands. PhotographsshowtheCHI line of hair care products with T.J. Maxx price tag and the label half peeled away to showabottle bearing a less expensive (and presumably lower-quality) hair care product. Most versionsof the claim included an assertion that salon-brand hair products should only be bought at hair salons, not discount retailers. The rumors served as a tacit criticism ofsalon clientele who purchase productfrom third parties rather thanfrom salons or stylists (who would earn commission and meet salon sales goals otherwise). A similar social media rumormaintained thateyelash extensionscan cause "lash lice," a story spreadprimarily by multi-level marketing salespeople hawkingmascara. In another instance, salons and stylists spread a rumor that Pantene (one of the top-selling drugstore hair care brands) can beflammable in combination with popular hair-lightening treatments. Both rumors began with or were passed alongby peopleinvested in the sale of competing products at full price. T.J. Maxx saidthat the CHI products depicted were genuine: At T.J. Maxx, conducting our business with integrity means everything to us and we take pride in offering our customers great values on high quality brand-name products. We have looked into your concerns and can assure you that the contents of the bottle are authentic and are as described on the outer label. We have also confirmed with our supplier that its relabeling of the bottle was appropriate. We thank you for your ongoing patronage of our stores. CHI also responded our questionsabout the photographs. The company explained that the labeling was due in partto manufacturing fluctuations, as well as cutting back on unnecessary waste: Recently, several of our customers have noticed cans of CHI®️ products with labels covering up other products. We sincerely wish to clear up any confusion. The Egyptian Oil and French Oil and other cans you may have seen were originally another CHI®️ product brand we manufactured. Due to a legal challenge that arose concerning the new brand names and designs, we were forced to cease production. As a result of this, we were left with many empty cylinders. To avoid them taking up vital space in our warehouse but most importantly, adding unnecessary waste to landfills, we decided to uphold our environmentally conscious efforts that we have maintained since 1986. We felt we made the right decision by placing original CHI®️ labels over these cylinders and filling them with our CHI®️ formulas. Therefore, the product is authentically made by Farouk Systems with the correct CHI®️ label on them and product inside. We sincerely apologize for any confusion this may have caused our customers. One of the two viral photographs didn't display a T.J. Maxx or Marshall's price tag, strongly suggestingthat the relabeledbottles were indeed notrestricted to non-salon retail environments. CHI's statement affirmedthe relabeled bottleswere in no way different than any other from the brand, whether purchased in a salon or a discount department store. In this instance, both the retailer and the manufacturer said thatthe product packaging was simply repurposed, but the contents remain authentic and identical to products sold in salons and other non-discount retail environments. (In instances where counterfeiting occurs, the companybeing impersonatedis typically the first to object to dilution of their brand.) Claim: Retailers T.J. Maxx and Marshall's sell counterfeit salon products.
Solution: 0