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'.

[Q]: Paragraph: "Newly installed CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert tangled, politely, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on his Sept. 21 show regarding the legacy of President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz, who's running for the Republican presidential nomination, whether he could agree with Reagan's support of ""amnesty"" for undocumented immigrants and the late president's willingness to raise some taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said ""of course not"" before pivoting to Reagan's most conservative accomplishments, one being that he ""signed the largest tax cut in history"" and spurred economic growth. ""When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year,"" Cruz said. ""There's only one other four-year period where that's true. That's true from 2008 to 2012."" His point was that Reagan rescued the U.S. economy from the ravages it suffered under his Democratic predecessor, President Jimmy Carter, and that the only other equivalent economic distress occurred under Carter's fellow Democrat, Barack Obama. Colbert responded, ""But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world's 'largest tax cut' and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So it's a matter of compromising."" We wondered if Cruz was correct about the periods of low GDP growth. (In a separate fact-check, we explore Colbert's rejoinder.) Excepting the unusual post-World War II period of 1945 through 1949 -- when the nation was demobilizing from an all-encompassing war -- Cruz has put his finger correctly on the two general periods in which the annual average growth of gross domestic product over four-year periods has sunk below 1 percent. They are the late 1970s era of ""stagflation"" (that is, stagnant growth combined with rapid inflation) and the aftermath of the Great Recession. The full annual data can be found here. But there were actually three distinct four-year periods during and after the Great Recession that fit Cruz's criteria, rather than one -- that is, the four-year periods starting with 2006, 2007 and 2008. (With every four-year period beginning after 2009, average annual GDP growth has exceeded 1 percent.) Here's the rundown of the four post-World War II periods that fit Cruz's criteria: First year Second year Third year Fourth year Average annual GDP growth 1979 1980 1981 1982 0.2 percent 2006 2007 2008 2009 0.3 percent 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.4 percent 2008 2009 2010 2011 0.4 percent So Cruz overlooked two additional four-year periods. Also, the implication of his comment -- that Democrats bear the primary responsibility for these periods of poor economic growth -- is not so clear. For starters, as we've discussed previously, economists say it's hard to determine how much credit or blame a president deserves for successes or shortcomings in the economy at large on their watch. Factors outside their control, from energy-price shocks to technological changes to pure luck, can have a significant impact on the nation's economic record. In addition, Cruz's groupings suggest some contradictory standard-setting. For the 1979-1982 period, Carter was in office for the first two years and Reagan was in office for the third and fourth years. But in the next two periods -- 2006-2009 and 2007-2010 -- George W. Bush, a Republican, was president for at least half of the time. In fact, Bush was in charge for the first three years in 2006-2009, and the first two years in 2007-2010. If Carter, Democrat, is to take blame for the slow growth in the first period, then logically Bush, a Republican, should shoulder the same blame in the next two four-year periods. By the same token, if Reagan, a Republican, escapes blame in the first example, then so too should Obama in the second and third four-year periods. And the 2005-2008 period --which occurred entirely on Bush's watch -- barely escapes inclusion on this list, with an average annual growth rate of 1.13 percent. (During the 2008-2011 period,Obamawas president for the final three of those years.) Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, said he doesn't blame either Reagan or Obama for the economic shortcomings early in their tenures that fall under Cruz's statistical claim. Still, he sees a logical inconsistency in Cruz's comparison as stated on Colbert's show. ""It seems doubtful whether poor economic performance early in any president's term can be attributed to the impact of his administration's policies,"" Burtless said. ""If you take office when economic output is plunging, it does not seem legitimate to attribute the economic plunge to the person who just took office."" He added a footnote: Unlike Obama, who unquestionably inherited a recession already under way, the economy actually grew through the first couple of months of Reagan's first term. GDP grew in the third and fourth quarters of 1980, right before he was elected, and continued to grow during the first quarter of 1981 after he was in office, before a ""double-dip"" recession hit. Cruz spokesman Phil Novack told PolitiFact that our analysis misses the point. ""The focus on who exactly held office in each of those individual time periods is not as important as the contrast between the two periods in terms of how quickly the economy was growing before and after those identified time periods, which is the point Cruz was making,"" Novack said. ""His point was obviously referring to policy results, and we know the results of the policies that followed those slow-growth years of below 1 percent growth that Sen. Cruz identified. Reagan's policies brought us a boom, and Obama's policies have been a bust."" For what it's worth, we also compared Carter and Reagan on their economic records and found them more similar than one might expect. During Carter's four years in office, the growth rate averaged 3.23 percent a year. If you take the first four years of Reagan's presidency, it averaged 3.34 percent. Essentially, each president had two good years and two bad years, which more or less averaged out. Our ruling Cruz said that ""when (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There's only one other four-year period where that's true. That's true from 2008 to 2012."" Cruz missedtwo other four-year periods that fit the criteria. In addition, his implication -- that Democrats are largely to blame for those conditions -- doesn't stand up to logical consistency, particularly when he excluded the period beginning in 2006 (which included three years solely under Bush) and 2007 (which included two years solely under Bush). This goes on top of general uncertainty about how much blame to assign presidents for poor economic conditions." Claim: When (Ronald) Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. There's only one other four-year period where that's true. That's true from 2008 to 2012.
[A]: 0

[Q]: Paragraph: The Alpine republic with a population of 8.8 million has tested around 28,400 people so far with nearly 4,900 cases and 28 deaths confirmed. It was one of the first European countries to put severe restrictions on movement and close shops and schools in response to the developments in neighboring Italy and a strong increase in coronavirus infections in its western regions. In coming weeks, Austria plans to test up to 15,000 people per day, the chancellor said. "We will also launch rapid tests, to test hundreds of thousands of people, as quickly as possible," Kurz told a news conference. He referred to brand new tests that are comparably cheap but take longer than laboratory tests used up until now. Broad testing is key to getting a clear picture of the real infection rate and an idea of how many people have developed immunity against the virus, the chancellor said. Top priority was to delay the peak of infections as long as possible to avoid a situation like in Italy or Spain, where the health systems are overwhelmed. "Our goal is that the number of infections doubles only every 14 days and not every two, three or five days and that we will set the right measures to keep it that way once we ramp up social life again," Kurz said. Austria's strict measures are in place until April 13, and Kurz said there was hope that a gradual withdrawal could start the day after. A government task force developing scenarios for the "ramp up" was currently dealing with questions such as in which order schools, businesses and production should restart. Lessons from other countries showed that it was crucial to remain disciplined and to make use of "big data". Asked what he meant by "big data", Kurz said: "We are currently working with the Red Cross and other enterprises on ideas that could be implemented in Austria and in Europe, and which are suitable for our system and our democracy." Austria's Red Cross is promoting a so-called "Stop Corona" app, which enables a user to digitally store who he meets and when. If a person shows symptoms of corona disease, these contact persons can be notified. Austria's mobile carrier A1 Telekom Austria is already sharing results from a motion analysis application that visualizes the movement flows of groups of people with the health authority. Claim: Austria bets on mass testing to manage coronavirus spread.
[A]: 2

[Q]: Paragraph: Discussion of costs is relatively unimportant as most individuals would know how much beer costs. The story did quantify the benefits of one parameter by quoting the abstract "incidence of upper respiratory tract infections was 3.25-fold lower" but it was not mentioned that these were self-reported upper respiratory tract infections. The story mentions that there was 'significantly less evidence of inflammation.and lower counts of white blood cells than the placebo group" but does not provide numbers. The story also states that the 'beer experiment' showed benefits of minimizing post-race damage. But the study didn't measure damage, it measured blood markers of immune function. In the study, participants consumed 1-1.5 liters/day of non-alcoholic beer (or a placebo) for 5 weeks total. There could be several potential adverse effects such as weight gain from extra calorie consumption, imbalances in nutrients if the liquid replaced other fluids, etc. No potential harms were mentioned. The quality of evidence in the research study was low as it was a non-peer reviewed abstract that was presented at a scientific meeting only, and this is not mentioned. While the treatment (non-alcoholic beer) was compared to a placebo in a double-blinded design, the nature of the placebo is not known, other than that it was a beverage. The research does not mention whether numerous important factors were controlled in the study design (the training regimens of the participants, their diets, their total beverage consumption, etc) and these extensive limitations are not mentioned in the story. No disease mongering. Marathon running was described as "punishing to the body, causing muscle soreness and inflammation." This is accurate. The story quotes the lead author extensively. Unfortunately, no other independent perspectives are provided. No potential conflicts of interest are noted. The article does not mention potential alternatives that might aid marathon recovery, including any other dietary alterations, and does not discuss the advantages and disadvantages compared with any other approaches. Not applicable. The availability of nonalcoholic beer is not in question. However, it is not clear from the original abstract whether the type of beer matters, as the brand and/or the characteristics (such as calories) were not provided. This is not mentioned in the story. (note: the brand was provided in a press release) The treatment, beer, is not novel, and is not presented as such. Other substances that also contain the purported active ingredient, polyphenols, are discussed. There was an American College of Sports Medicine news release for the abstract, but it doesn't appear to have been relied upon. Maybe it should have been, since the news release actually includes a disclaimer the story did not include that the research was presented at a professional meeting but has not been peer-reviewed. Claim: Nonalcoholic Beer Aids Marathon Recovery
[A]:
0