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: At the last minute, he changed his mind when his young daughter grabbed his arm and begged him: "Daddy, don't die." Unlike Jang, many people do not pull back from the brink in South Korea, which has had the highest suicide rate in the developed world for nine straight years, often drinking pesticide as their way out. But a decade after Jang's brush with death, a ban on fatal pesticides is credited with cutting the number of suicides by 11 percent last year, the first drop in six years. The government restricted production of Gramoxone, a herbicide linked to suicides, in 2011 and outlawed its sale and storage last year. "The number of suicides by poisoning including Gramoxone fell by 477, which accounts for about 27 percent of the total decrease in the number of people committing suicide," Lee Jae-won, an official at Statistics Korea, said last week after the government released the latest figures. Pesticide was the method of choice for almost a quarter of the South Koreans who killed themselves between 2006 and 2010, according to a government report to parliament. In the highly competitive society of Asia's fourth-largest economy, experts say people who end up alone battling pressure for good school grades or from financial burdens have little in the way of a safety net. Despite the improvement in the suicide rate, more than 14,000 South Koreans killed themselves last year. Elderly people living in rural areas are a particularly high-risk group. Since the 1950s, older generations have been fixated on South Korea becoming more competitive and productive, a side effect of rapid industrialisation that turned a war-damaged country into one of the richest in the world. Kim Hyun-chung, a psychiatrist at the Korean Association for Suicide Prevention, sees social stigmas as a major reason for the high suicide rate. Many South Koreans who are depressed or under heavy stress are reluctant to bring up issues like mental illness or an inability to cope, he said. "The ban on toxic pesticides obviously led to the decline in the suicide rate because that is the easiest means of suicide for elderly people in rural towns," Kim said. "But we still have bridges and charcoal briquettes." To help limit access to lethal chemicals, the Life Insurance Philanthropy Foundation launched a campaign to provide pesticide lockers to farming towns with high rates of depression. The foundation, set up by private insurance firms, says no one from the villages with the lockers has committed suicide over the past three years, compared with one or two people from each village who had killed themselves in past years. "The lockers help reduce the impulse to get hold of pesticides because they have to find keys to open them," Chung Bong-eun, an official at the foundation, told Reuters. The 2012 figures may offer a glimmer of hope, but the latest comparisons by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed South Korea was by far the most suicidal society, followed by Hungary, Russia and Japan. For Jang, working two jobs is still tough, but he regrets trying to kill himself and is happy to have his life to share with his two daughters. While he sees the ban on pesticides as a positive step, he feels for others who are under duress. "Old and young people have their own pain from either quick economic development or unemployment," he said. "I hope the government will care more about people's health."

Output: Pesticide ban cuts South Korea's high suicide rate - a bit.

Input: Consider Input: Health workers were desperate to persuade him to get vaccinated for Ebola after a friend fell ill with the lethal and highly contagious disease. But within days, Nduhi was dead. His widow and their four young children were given his positive Ebola test result and a chilling warning from a team of health workers: "If you don't accept vaccination, you can prepare to die." Deep distrust along with political instability and deadly violence has severely undermined efforts by public health authorities in Congo to curb the outbreak by tracing and vaccinating those who may have come into contact with infected people. Health experts agree the experimental Ebola vaccine has saved multitudes in Congo. But after nearly a year and some 171,000 doses given, the epidemic shows few signs of waning. The virus has killed more than 1,700 people and has now arrived in the region's largest city, Goma. The World Health Organization last week declared the outbreak a global health emergency. During the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, which left more than 11,300 people dead, health workers could only dream of a vaccine with a 97.5 percent effectiveness rate that could improve the odds of survival even in those already infected. "We have it now and it's not the miracle we wanted it to be," said Dr. Joanne Liu, president of Doctors Without Borders. "The fact that we've used so much vaccine, and the epidemic hasn't stopped, that shows us that contact tracing is not great." WHO says as many as 90 percent of those eligible for vaccination have accepted it, but that figure only includes those who gave contact tracers enough information to be included on a list. The success rate excludes those who distrusted health workers and fled, or those who couldn't be found in the first place. Health workers have been using what is known as a ring vaccination strategy: The vaccine is first given to those who were in close contact with a sick person. Then a second so-called ring is created by giving the vaccine to those who were in contact with those people. Because of the difficulties in making that strategy work, some people didn't get vaccinated until they had already been infected with the virus, and they developed Ebola anyway. That increased doubts about the vaccine in communities where the public health campaigns led by outsiders already were viewed with suspicion and hostility. "The rumors were if you got vaccinated you would die," said Liboke Kakule Muhingi, a 43-year-old farmer in Mangina, where the epidemic began last August. His mother was among the first to die. Then, one by one, six of his sisters who had cared for their ailing mother were killed by Ebola. Kakule accepted the vaccine and made sure his wife and eight children got it, too. "If I hadn't, we'd all be dead," he said. In some cases, health teams have been unable to reach certain areas because of violence or rebel activity. Earlier this month, the head of the Congolese health ministry's response efforts in Beni was at one point unable to return from a field visit while the military battled ADF rebels, who are linked to the Islamic State. More often, though, contact lists have fallen apart simply because people have deliberately evaded health workers or did not understand they shouldn't travel after being exposed. A pastor who became the first confirmed case in Goma had apparently put down fake names at health checkpoints to avoid detection. He had been sickened in the town of Butembo and then took a bus while ill. WHO and the Congolese health ministry have now switched tactics and are offering the vaccine to anyone who wants it. With Ebola's arrival in Goma, a city of more than 2 million people, some wonder whether there will be enough of the vaccine if the outbreak continues. The vaccine's manufacturer, Merck, said it has 245,000 1-millileter doses on hand and that could rise to 900,000 over the next 18 months. The dose in Congo also has been reduced to 0.5 mL, effectively doubling the supply. "Whether or not the available doses are sufficient to fulfill the demands depends on the evolution of the outbreak, the access to the communities and the successful expansion of the production of additional doses by Merck in early 2020," WHO said. There is a second experimental vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, but health officials in Congo have said it will not be used because it needs further testing and would cause too much confusion. It requires two doses given one month apart. It's unclear how long the Merck vaccine will protect people. Scientists know from early studies that it lasts for at least a year, but the epidemic is approaching that limit. The only study to report longer vaccine durability tracked only a small number of healthy volunteers in Geneva for two years. The new strategy of giving shots to anyone who wants them involves setting up "pop-up" sites in the neighborhoods most affected. Last week a vaccination team headed to the neighborhood in Beni where Nduhi's wife had stayed after he died. Outside the mud-brick home where his children still lived, a pickup truck full of plastic tables and chairs pulled over. Soon a tent was set up, and vaccination teams donned eye protection and yellow surgical gowns. Neighborhood children climbed the trees to watch. Baraka Kathembo Makasi, a 22-year-old motorbike taxi driver, brought his wife and two children with him. "At first I refused," he said, "but I started seeing people die and decided to go." ___ Associated Press writers Al-Hadji Kudra Maliro in Beni, Congo; Lauran Neergaard in Washington; Maria Cheng in London; and Jamey Keaten in Geneva contributed to this report.

Output: Ebola vaccine hampered by deep distrust in eastern Congo.

Input: Consider Input: "What happened to Minnesota nice? Michele Bachmann blasted her fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty after he questioned her experience. The two are competing for the Republican nomination for president. ""These are serious times that require serious solutions -- not more of the same. Being right on the issues is critical -- it is what the American people demand. Executive experience is not an asset if it simply means bigger and more intrusive government,"" Bachmann said in a prepared statement on July 24, 2011. ""Governor Pawlenty said in 2006, 'The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive.' That's the same philosophy that, under President Obama, has brought us record deficits, massive unemployment and an unconstitutional health care plan."" We wanted to see if Bachmann was correct about what Pawlenty said about small government, as it seems like a sentiment unlikely to be popular in a Republican primary. We contacted both campaigns for comment but didn't hear back from either one. We were able to easily find the comment; it originated with an August 2006 report in theMinneapolis Star Tribune. (We found it in the Nexis newspaper database.) ""Pawlenty sees his role as reformer,"" says the headline. ""The GOP governor has targeted what he calls excessive corporate power. Critics call his election-year 'populism' cosmetic."" The story says that starting in 2006, Pawlenty ""repeatedly made himself a nuisance to major industries that frequently back Republicans,"" particularly calling on Congress to put new regulations on prescription drug companies and auto makers. The story said he called for a two-year ban on advertising prescription drugs, urged regulators to speed the release of generic insulin products and proposed new regulations to support the use of ethanol. ""Those kinds of proposals for government intervention in the free market on the surface might seem unusual coming from a conservative GOP politician. But they are illustrations of the way that Pawlenty, a fiscal and social conservative, also styles himself a kind of latter-day trust buster, a reformer who is unafraid to challenge big business and wield government power to correct imbalances in the marketplace,"" the story said. And here's the key section: ""The era of small government is over,"" Pawlenty said in an interview with the Star Tribune. ""I'm a market person, but there are certain circumstances where you've got to have government put up the guardrails or bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful ... Government has to be more proactive, more aggressive."" ... Pawlenty insists his own populist streak is no election-year attempt to steer toward the middle. Peel back the conservative, he said, and you find the boy who grew up near South St. Paul's stockyards and learned what happened when power became too concentrated. When companies gain too much power, he said, they can suppress wages. Drug companies can command high prices for brand-name products long after they could have gone generic. Oil companies can use their muscle to keep out renewable fuels. HMOs can shift costs from their members to the public at large. While he may not fit the DFL [Democratic-Farm-Labor Party] definition of a populist, Pawlenty said, ""it's a matter of where you draw the line. ... I know that concentrated power unchecked leads to bad things,"" he said. We're not sure what Pawlenty's own reaction to the story was, but his press secretary didn't like it. The next day, theStar Tribuneran a ""clarification,"" that said the story ""quoted Gov. Tim Pawlenty saying 'The era of small government is over,' a comment he made in reference to a point made in a 2004 column byNew York Timescolumnist David Brooks. Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said Monday that Pawlenty's record shows he is not a supporter of 'big government' and that he was 'simply talking about the need for government to be more effective and active.'"" TheStar Tribunestory doesn't mention David Brooks, but we went searching for the relevant story, and it seems likely it was a story Brooks wrote for theNew York Times Magazinethat took the measure of the conservative movement in 2004, headlined ""How to re-invent the G.O.P."" In the story, Brooks noted that historical forces like Islamic extremism and the end of socialism were changing the nature of conservatism, pushing it away from a minimalist vision for government. The new conservatism ""understands the paradox that if you don't have a positive vision of government, you won't be able to limit the growth of government. If you can't offer people a vision of what government should do, you won't be able to persuade them about the things it shouldn't do. If the Republican Party is going to evolve into a principled majority party, members of this group are going to have to build a governing philosophy based on this insight,"" Brooks wrote. Brooks said George W. Bush typified this new approach. ""By the time he began his campaign for president in 1999, Bush understood that the simple government-is-the-problem philosophy of the older Republicans was obsolete. During that campaign, Bush criticized what he called the 'destructive mind-set: the idea that if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved. An approach with no higher goal, no nobler purpose, than ""Leave us alone.''' Instead, Bush argued, 'government must be carefully limited but strong and active.'"" Pawlenty maintains that he was incorrectly quoted in the Star Tribune story. In May 2011, he went on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and Limbaugh asked him if he had indeed said, ""The era of small government is over."" ""The other side has pushed that falsely for a number of years,"" Pawleny said, according to the show's transcript. ""What happened is in theMinnesota Star Tribune-- not exactly a conservative publication -- I made reference to an article that David Brooks wrote which was entitled, 'The Era of Small Government is Over.' I didn't say those words myself; I was referencing his article. ""The very next day, theStar Tribune, after a big battle, printed a clarification or a correction in their correction page,"" he continued. ""Of course, the main article was on page one and the correction was buried in some footnote in page three, but that incorrect quote has haunted me -- and I'm glad I had a chance in this big national forum on your great show to clarify, because if you go to the next day's newspaper you'll see the clarification in theStar Tribune."" We should note that the headline of the Brooks' article we found was not ""The Era of Small Government is Over,"" but we won't quibble about that. Pawlenty could have seen the article or another one like it somewhere with a modified headline, and the phrase certainly captures the article's sentiment. We also contacted theStar Tribuneto see if it still stood by the story. The story's author, Patricia Lopez, is now the newspaper's political editor. Here's what she said: ""The governor was quoted correctly, which is why we printed only a clarification. He was quoting a David Brooks column, but as you can see, it was in support of other statements he made about the role of government. He never asked to have any other statement in the article corrected."" But even if Pawlenty was quoting Brooks when he said the phrase ""the era of small government is over"" during the interview, he seemed to be doing so approvingly. The rest of the article portrays Pawlenty as someone who was willing to use government to intervene in the markets and gives examples to support that. Here's a little more from the story. ""Oil companies have played a role in suppressing the development of alternative fuels,"" Pawlenty said, with heavy-handed contracts that prevent gasoline stations from providing pumps for renewable fuels such as ethanol. With the nation's economic security at stake, ""that is disproportionate power,"" he said. ""Government has to step in."" Similarly, when he testified before Congress for reimportation of drugs from Canada, where prices are government-regulated, Pawlenty said he got a taste of the pharmaceutical industry's might. ""I've seen it firsthand,"" he said. ""They've got a power that would frighten most citizens."" Pawlenty has changed positions on energy policy; he once supported a cap and trade systembut no longer does. We looked for any recent statements he's made about reimporting drugs from Canada, but couldn't find any. We also asked two political watchers in Minnesota if theStar Tribunestory was generally reflective of Pawlenty's political views in 2006. They said it was. ""In terms of his views on government, I think he can best be described as actively wanting to use the government to achieve certain ends, only with less taxes,"" said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University who studies Minnesota politics. Schultz said Pawlenty's rhetoric became more conservative starting around 2008, when his name was mentioned as a potential running mate for John McCain. ""In fairness, Pawlenty did restrain spending by the Democratic Legislature. But he was more moderate on several other issues than he now appears, and the (Star Tribunestory) is an example of that,"" said Steve Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College. So where does this leave us? Back in 2006, Pawlenty was portraying himself as a conservative who was willing to intervene in markets, and he said that government has to ""bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful."" It appears he's been backing off those positions in 2011, but that doesn't change what his views were years ago. If he was quoting David Brooks when he said ""the era of small government is over,"" he seemed to be doing so approvingly, though a spokesman said he did not mean to imply that he supported ""big government.""."
Output: "Michele Bachmann Says Tim Pawlenty said in 2006, ""The era of small government is over... the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive."