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'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "In a public interview hosted by the Austin-based Texas Tribune, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White compared Republican leadership on state budget woes to how things swung in ye olde U.S.S.R. You remember, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- home of the late dictator Joseph Stalin and run single-handedly by the Communist Party prior to the government's collapse in 1991. White said March 9 he'd take a more deliberate approach to spending than the state's top leaders, all Republican, who asked government agencies in January to suggest ways to cut their budgets by 5 percent. White said if he's in charge, ""it won't be done by things that are just across the board, Soviet style, you know, budget management that only career politicians seem to embrace."" Pressed by interviewer Evan Smith, White said: ""Is it just a coincidence that 5 percent is the appropriate amount for each state agency?... No. It's because that's the way that career politicians know how to run government."" We started our review of White's statement wondering what ""Soviet-style"" budget management means. Several expert professors said that historically, the term didn't refer to across-the-board budget cuts. Professor Paul Gregory of the University of Houston Department of History said ""Soviet style"" makes him think of a monopoly party (in this case, the Communist Party) dictating everything to subordinates without any possibility of change. Gregory said Soviet-style budgeting also means hiding expenditures you don't want people to seesuch as massive investments in military infrastructure. Peter Caldwell, a Rice University professor of history, said budget-writing in the Soviet Union most often consisted of "huge and crude" decisions to invest in one part of the economy at the expense of another. And H. Stephen Gardner, chairman of the Baylor University Department of Economics, said he'd define Soviet-style management as overly centralized as opposed to giving autonomy to individual units of government. So are there ""Soviet style"" ways that state leaders have approached the budget? Some background: In January, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus--mindful of a projected state revenue shortfall that could reach $15 billion by next January--jointly asked agencies to submit plans identifying savings in 5 percent "priority increments" in their 2010-11 appropriations from state revenue. Such plans could lead to cuts, though no decisions have been made and some programs have already been excused. No doubt, the leaders' request is a centralized one. But is it Soviet-style in any other way? We turned to White for elaboration. White's campaign pointed us to a statement issued by White, the former Houston mayor, in January: "Well-run organizations cut spending based on priorities and where they can best attain productivity improvements. So, for example, in the city of Houston we made smaller cuts in public safety because that was the highest priority. And we were able to cut more in garbage collection and disposal through productivity improvements." White then told us that by ""Soviet style,"" he doesn't mean that Texas state government owns the means of production, as in the Soviet Union. "Obviously we have a market system," White said. He described his alternative approach to the looming revenue gap, saying that as governor, he'd focus on funding priorities such as education while encouraging agencies to improve productivity via ""process re-engineering"" without hurting the delivery of services to taxpayers. He said the state also would seek savings by renegotiating vendor contracts. Also, he said, there'd be regular meetings with agency chiefs to talk about how they're cutting spending and avoiding non-essential hirings. "I would have had reports back to me weekly and monthly concerning the efficiencies identified," White said. We didn't get to why White considers the existing approach ""Soviet style"" before he had to go. Weasked the professors if ""Soviet style"" accurately characterizes the GOP leaders' request for proposed budget cuts. Gregory said describing the request from Perry, et al. that way "doesn't seem to have any relevance to what was actually practiced in the Soviet Union. ... It's inappropriate to use that term."" Gardner agreed, saying: ""It's a bit hyperbolic to refer to this (budget cutting) as Soviet style. I should admit I have done exactly the same thing myself on matters of budgeting." The point of saying as much, Gardner said, is to elicit an emotional reaction. He added that Republicans who cast President Barack Obama as socialist Perry has told reporters he thinks Obama has socialist beliefs are likewise guilty of hyperbole for dramatic effect. The professor, who said he considers Obama a centrist, speculated that Noam Chomsky, a left-leaning linguist who writes on public affairs, would call the president a ""crazed capitalist."" ""If White's point is that budget management is being handled in an overly centralized way,"" Gardner said, ""I can see the element of truth there. The problem I would have is even if you say I am going to be more careful and more surgically look at the right places to cut, you're still using a more centralized approach." Caldwell agreed with the psychological impact, if not the accuracy, of ""Soviet style."" Generally, he said, "anyone who ever mentions the Soviet economy or Naziism when they're talking about American domestic debate is usually off track. They're referring to crude examples to raise the stakes of a debate. They're not necessarily wanting a careful, rational debate. Who in America wants the Soviet economy or supports Naziism?" Our conclusion? The GOP leaders' request that agencies submit proposed budget cuts isn't Soviet style not even close. At best, White's statement is an example of how politicians try to light up a room. It's so off base, we're lighting up the meter: !" Claim: "Bill White Says Republican state leaders are using ""Soviet-style"" budget management."

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Officials discovered that there were 182 intravenous drug users who were affected in Lowell and Lawrence between 2015 and 2019, The Boston Globe reported. The number of cases dropped after the summer of 2018 after a campaign to increase access to treatment. There were six new cases diagnosed in Boston in December 2018 before a similar campaign was launched, and cases dropped down until fall of 2019. "We do seem to see a growing number of very, very vulnerable people with substance use disorder, with injection drug use, in great need for care," said Dr. Jennifer K. Brody, director of HIV services at the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. The state has increased the number of needle exchanges from five in 2015 to 33, in an attempt to provide clean injection supplies and training, the paper reported. Infections among people who inject drugs declined 91% between 2000 and 2014. "What we're seeing is the need for much more aggressive street outreach," said Carl Sciortino, vice president of government relations for Fenway Health. Claim: Officials alert health care providers of HIV surge.

Ex Output:
2

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Donald Trump made a grab for blue collar Democrats by citing the anti-trade, anti-Hillary Clinton rhetoric of Clinton's Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. For his latest attack, he borrowed Sanders' own words. ""As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton 'voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs,' "" Trump said in a speech about the economy delivered outside a recycling plant in western Pennsylvania. The presumptive Republican nominee quoted Sanders accurately (barring the Trumpian flourish emphasizing ""millions""). But Sanders' original claim, which we investigated, wasn't without faults. Clinton has largely supported free trade, though her position is more nuanced than Trump and Sanders suggest, she The notion that ""millions, millions of jobs"" have been lost because of trade, however, is more debatable. Clinton's position on free trade Sanders is consistently anti-free trade, and Trump has been outspoken in disapproval of deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Clinton's views, however, seem to depend on the content of each agreement. Overall, Trump and Sanders have a point that she's supported more trade deals than she's opposed. As first lady, Clinton spoke favorably of the NAFTA, signed by President Bill Clinton. The deal, she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History, ""would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization."" During her 2000 Senate bid to represent New York, Clinton supported normalizing trade relations with China. Out of the 10 trade deals that came up for a vote when she was in the Senate, Clinton said yes to six, no to two, and skipped the votes on two (though she had given her vocal support). She also voted for legislation that included an amendment granting Vietnam normalized trade status. She was in favor of a deal with Jordan because of its ""internationally recognized enforceable labor standards,"" she explained in 2005, but she considered the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement ""a step backward."" As a presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton had varying opinions on several trade deals, and she changed her position on NAFTA. She called NAFTA ""a mistake"" and opposed pending deals with South Korea (out of concern for American carmakers), Colombia (because of labor rights abuses) and Panama (whose National Assembly president was a U.S. fugitive). She reiterated her support for free trade with Peru on the campaign trail, praising the country for its ""very strong labor and environmental protections."" As secretary of state in the pro-trade administration of President Barack Obama, Clinton walked back her opposition to three deals from her 2008 run and helped negotiate them. As a presidential candidate in 2016, she flip-flopped on her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Year Trade deal Clinton's position 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement Supported in 1990s, against in 2007 2002 Trade Act of 2002* Voted against** 2003 Chile-United States Voted for 2003 Singapore-United States Voted for 2004 Australia-United States Voted for 2004 Morocco-United States Voted for 2005 Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement Voted against 2005 Bahrain-United States Voted for*** 2006 Oman-United States Voted for 2007 Peru-United States Didn't vote, supported in 2007 2007 Jordan-United States Didn't vote, supported in 2005 2011 Panama-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2011 Colombia-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2011 South Korea-United States Against in 2007, supported in 2010 2015 Trans-Pacific Partnership Supported in 2010, against in 2015 * This deal is not included in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's list of free trade agreements, but contains many free trade provisions. ** This is a vote for ""fast track authority"" allowing trade agreement to move through Congress without amendments or filibusters. *** The free trade agreement with Bahrain passed by unanimous consent, not a recorded roll call vote. Employment impact unclear The jury is still out on the impact of trade deals on employment, even after decades of debate. On one side, unions and some left-leaning think tanks often link American job losses to expanded trade. Labor advocates opposed the Chile and Singapore agreements, which they said in a 2003 report would kill an unspecified number of jobs. The liberal Economic Policy Institute, which Trump cited, has found that NAFTA has cost the United States over 800,000 jobs, and the South Korean deal cost about 60,000. In a 2014 report, the think tank reported that the United States has lost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013 to trade with China. Business groups, on the other hand, argue that trade deals actually boost employment. For example, a 2010 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that the 14 trade deals in place in 2008 supported 5.4 million jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S-China Business Council and the Financial Times contend that the loss in manufacturing jobs were not due to trade with China so much as gains in technology and productivity, as well as the result of a more sophisticated economy. And in a recent fact-check, we found several nonpartisan reports demonstrating that NAFTA produced no significant job losses nor job gains. Analysis by economists at Tufts University and the University of Michigan projected no net impact on employment from the Chile, Singapore and South Korea deals. Our ruling Trump said, ""As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton 'for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.' "" He accurately recasted Sanders' words, but that doesn't make the attack any more correct. Out of the 10 trade deals Clinton could have voted on, she voted in favor of six and against two. On two other deals (with Peru and Jordan), she didn't vote but did vouch for them. As for subsequent job losses, independent research has shown the impact of NAFTA, for example, to not be significant one way or the other for jobs. Trump's claim is partially accurate and needs additional information." Claim: As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton 'voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions, millions of jobs.'

Ex Output:
1