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 Q]: Paragraph: But a decade on, work at the site is only 10% complete because of a row over an increasingly scarce resource in Iran that is vital to keep the facility cool: water. "In early project studies, there were some mistakes about the amount of water the plant would need," said Hamidreza Soleymannejad, one of the plant's project managers. "They found the plant needs a lot of water, but the region could not provide that." The fate of the Firouzabad plant is not unique in Iran, even though the nation has huge oil and gas reserves and is eager to expand output of downstream products which can more easily evade crippling U.S. sanctions on its vital energy industry. At least a dozen petrochemical, fertilizer and refinery projects, with combined capacity to produce more than 5 million tonnes a year of products, have hit the buffers or been delayed due to water supply problems, according to a Reuters assessment. The list was compiled based on reports in state media, direct comments from project managers involved in several of the delayed plants, traders, and details published by some of the companies or major shareholders in the developments. Reuters sought comment from investors or companies involved. Most did not respond to emailed requests, while two confirmed water shortages were a major issue. One denied there was any problem, although a trader with close links to the project flagged a lack of water supplies as a crucial factor. Fasa Petrochemical Company and Darab Petrochemical Company, which each own 30% in Firouzabad Petrochemical Company, did not respond to requests for comment. "Many of these projects were proposed by lawmakers who were trying to create jobs in their constituencies. Unfortunately the technical studies have been widely ignored," said Reza Banimahd, a businessman in Tehran who has worked on refinery projects. The water shortage is one of many challenges facing Tehran as it seeks to skirt U.S. sanctions by ramping up production of products, which are more difficult to trace back to Iran than Iranian crude, which has clearly identifiable characteristics. Under sanctions, crude exports have plunged 80% and are now worth about $700 million a month - a calculation based on Iran's normal selling price although under sanctions Iran tends to sell crude at a discount. By comparison, Tehran has kept oil product sales at about $500 million a month, Reuters calculations show. Graphic: Iranian fuel oil exports, here Oil refineries and other processing plants need water mainly for cooling. Producing a single gallon of gasoline requires 0.610.71 of a gallon of water. But diverting limited supplies away from farming towards industry carries political risks. Drought and depleting water supplies have sparked unrest. Farmers in Iran's central region protested here in several cities in 2018 over water mismanagement, as rainfall dropped 25% below the average. The plant in Firouzabad, an inland area in the parched south of the country, aimed to produce 1 million tonnes of ethylene a year. Based on figures for a similar capacity plant, that output would use more than 2 million tonnes of water a year. The government, which worries about falling national groundwater levels, wants the $500 million plant moved to the coast where desalinated water could be used. But local officials and a senior cleric have objected and the project has stalled. Azizollah Hashemizadeh, Firouzabad's Friday prayer leader who reports to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the top authority in Iran's theocratic system, said in June the project would bring prosperity and could not be shifted. While Khamenei has the last word in state affairs, there are a range of parallel institutions below him that often compete for influence. For example, the Revolutionary Guards, an investor in the Firouzabad plant, has a separate command structure to the conventional army and has vast industrial interests. The Revolutionary Guards did not respond to a request for comment sent via their website. The structure of rival power centers often creates a tortured decision-making process and can push aside commercial and environmental factors. "There is a problem with coordination between ministries over development plans," said Kaveh Madani, a former Iranian deputy vice president for the environment and now visiting professor at London's Imperial College, adding that sanctions had pushed the government to prioritize jobs over water and the environment. The delay in the Firouzabad plant has had knock on effects, disrupting four other projects that aimed to use the facility's output of ethylene, an ingredient used to make products such as polyester resins and adhesives. Those offtake plants would also have added to strains on the region's scant water reserves. "Delay is not a good word. After 12 years, we are practically facing a failed project," said another project manager for the Firouzabad plant when contacted by Reuters. Asking not to be identified, he said the proposed new coastal site was empty, flattened but with nothing yet built. Despite the challenges, Iran has boosted refining capacity, announcing in February it was self sufficient in gasoline. Iran's petrochemical plants have capacity to make about 65 million tonnes of products a year, of which about 22.5 million tonnes is exported. The government aims to increase output to 91 million tonnes in two years and 130 million tonnes in five years. Iran's refining capacity stands at about 2.23 million barrels per day, putting it behind regional leader Saudi Arabia. Graphic: Middle East refining capacities (2018), here Social Security Investment Company, a state body with 200 subsidiaries and major energy investments, flagged problems facing the industry in a 2018 report including sanctions and "the drought and shortage of water for the inland refineries." It said some projects "were not economically feasible as they were initiated to create jobs in unsuitable locations." In northeast Iran, Khorasan Petrochemical Company has struggled to launch a fertilizer plant to produce 660,000 tonnes of urea, using gas as a feedstock. Five years on, the project is at a standstill despite securing $700 million in state support. "Water resources for the project have not been provided and remain unclear," Tamin Petroleum and Petrochemical Investment Company (TAPPICO), a major shareholder, wrote on its website. Agriculture, a major employer in Iran, accounts for about 90% of Iran's water usage, with industry using 10%. But any extra demand strains Iran's depleting reserves. U.N. data indicate Iran is using 3.8 billion cubic meters of water a year more than is replaced, leading to a fast falling water table. Nevertheless, some projects still go ahead even in areas where strains are acute. Shazand refinery in central Iran had to drill deep wells to pump groundwater, state news agency IRNA reported in 2018, alarming environmentalists and sapping supplies from farmers. When asked to comment, Shazand Petrochemical Company pointed to a statement published on its website that was published after Reuters made the request: "To reduce consumption of groundwater, the company has planned to use the reservoir of Kamal Saleh dam - when it is full - and wastewater of neighboring cities." The company said it was seeking a contractor for its water recycling project. Graphic: Iran refineries, here Claim: Iran's thirsty energy industry runs up against water shortage.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "It starts like a joke Gov. Rick Scott walks into a Gainesville Starbucks but one patron wasn't laughing. In town on April 5, 2016, to tour the recently opened factory and headquarters for biopharmaceutical company Nanotherapeutics, Scott stopped in to the coffee chain for a cup. Cara Jennings, a former Lake Worth city commissioner, saw Scott and ripped into him from her seat. Among other grievances, she accused him of denying her health care coverage with his policies. ""In fact, you cut Medicaid so I couldn't get Obamacare,"" Jennings shouted on April 5, 2016. ""You are an a------! You don't care about working people. You don't care about working people. You should be ashamed to show your face around here."" When Scott countered that the state had created a million jobs since the recession, she said no one cared (read our fact-check on those jobs numbers). She then criticized his March signing of a bill denying funding for women's health care clinics that performed abortions (read our check about that issue). We tried to reach Jennings by phone, text, email and even Facebook, but we didn't hear back from her, so we don't really know the specifics of her situation. That makes it difficult to gauge whether she was able to benefit from the health care law. But we can look at whether Scott cut Medicaid, the joint state and federal program to provide health insurance for the very poor, in a way that could have denied people health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. It's not so much that he cut anything, but more that he hasn't consistently supported expanding the program. That has indeed left hundreds of thousands of Floridians without coverage. The expansion debate Jennings told ABC Action News in Tampa after the incident that she is a single mother who worked part-time. That provides clues that she may fall into what is known as the Medicaid coverage gap. To understand why, let's review how the Affordable Care Act is linked to Medicaid. The law originally wanted to cover uninsured people two different ways. One was to subsidize people who needed help buying insurance through state marketplaces or HealthCare.gov. The second was to expand Medicaid to cover a higher number of poorer people. Normally, to be eligible for Medicaid, your annual income has to be 44 percent of the federal poverty level (100 percent is currently $11,880 for an individual and $24,300 for a family of four). The plan was to extend that eligibility to all adults up to 138 percent of the poverty level. Technically the calculation under the law is 133 percent, but a 5 percent deduction is added on top of that. But Medicaid expansion ended up being optional after a 2012 Supreme Court ruling saying it could not be forced upon states. Currently 19 states, including Florida, have chosen not to grow the program. Recent estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that 948,000 uninsured adults in Florida would be covered by an expansion. This has led to plenty of debate among lawmakers, including a meltdown during the 2015 Florida legislative session over how to cover more lower-income residents. The Senate was open to a limited expansion, while the House opposed it altogether. But now the math really starts to get tricky. If a state doesn't expand Medicaid, people who make 100 to 400 percent of the poverty level can get marketplace subsidies to buy private insurance. Because of the way the law was written, that leaves people making between 44 and 100 percent of the poverty level out in the cold, without assistance. Those people don't qualify for Medicaid, and can't get subsidies to buy insurance. That's the so-called coverage gap. According to Kaiser, there are 567,000 people under that umbrella in the Sunshine State. Chances are good that a single mother working part time could fit into that definition. Scott, a former hospital chain executive best known for resigning amid controversy over his company defrauding Medicare, has had a spotty history with Medicaid. He initially opposed expanding the program under Obamacare, then supported it during his re-election campaign, then went back to opposing it. While the Legislature is the body that would have to approve an expansion, Scott's opinion affects the debate. (Scott's office did not respond to our questions about Medicaid.) He has argued with Washington over the federal government ending payments for low-income hospital patients, leaving the Legislature to use state money to plug holes in the program the last two years. Scott has also asked lawmakers to eliminate automatic increases to Medicaid hospital rates. He's also overseen the state's controversial transition to managed care, in which private companies took over Medicaid policies as a cost-cutting measure. Florida CHAIN, a consumer health advocacy group, told us managed care organizations had actually seen a boost in funding. And there's the aforementioned abortion bill Scott signed on March 25. That bill prevents state and Medicaid money from going to clinics that perform elective abortions, including Planned Parenthood affiliates. But these are specific issues not necessarily related to getting access to broad health care coverage under Obamacare. While many Floridians remain uninsured without Medicaid expansion, we found no evidence of an outright cut, as Jennings said. Our ruling The activist at Starbucks said Rick Scott ""cut Medicaid"" so people can't ""get Obamacare."" Her point-blank accusation that Scott cut the program doesn't fit. But through Scott's inaction and the Florida House's resistance to expansion,many Floridians are not benefitting from either subsidies to buy private insurance or an expanded Medicaid. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details." Claim: "Rick Scott's Starbucks heckler Says Rick Scott ""cut Medicaid"" so people can't ""get Obamacare."
[EX A]: 1

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Gov. Bruce Rauner's signing of a controversial abortion bill last month triggered an avalanche of protest from his fellow Illinois Republicans and anti-abortion groups, who said he had betrayed them. The bill, House Bill 40, removed a ""trigger provision"" in Illinois law that would have made abortion illegal should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade. It also made abortion eligible for coverage under Medicaid in Illinois and under the state's employee health insurance plan. Opponents were angry that Rauner broke a promise he made five months earlier to veto the bill because of its Medicaid and insurance component, which for the first time would use state taxpayer funds to pay for abortion outside of cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother. They also claimed Rauner reneged on a campaign pledge that he had ""no social agenda,"" which they interpreted as Rauner having no plans to change the state's abortion laws. In a Sept. 28 press conference in which he announced his intent to sign the bill, Rauner lamented that he could not convince Democratic lawmakers to split the legislation into separate bills, one covering the trigger provision and the other dealing with insurance coverage. But he defended his action as consistent with his pro-choice principles. ""I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor,"" Rauner said. Rauner's statement sent us combing through video clips, ads and news coverage of the 2014 gubernatorial election to see if he really was consistent in presenting his pro-choice stance to voters during that hotly contested race. Here's what we found. Rauner, a wealthy private equity investor who had never run for elected office, sought to build his campaign solely on economic, educational and political reform issues. He stated often that he had no social agenda, and his wife, Diana, appeared in a campaign ad making that very statement. This helped Rauner avoid taking a direct stand on same-sex marriage, which was a hot topic in Illinois politics in the months preceding the 2014 GOP primary for governor. In May 2013, just before Rauner formally declared his candidacy, longtime state GOP chairman Pat Brady resigned in part because of fallout from him having declared his support for same-sex marriage. Rauner's no-social-agenda claim also proved useful when it came to navigating the political minefield of abortion. To win election in a Democratic-leaning state, Rauner needed to get votes from Democrats who support abortion rights and moderate Republicans without antagonizing social conservatives. ""My opponent is desperate for social issues to become prominent in the campaign,"" Rauner said in a campaign appearance with his running mate, Evelyn Sanguinetti, in June 2014. ""And I've been crystal clear: I do not have a social agenda. Evelyn and I are not running on social issues. We all have our personal beliefs. We are not advocating leading on social issues, we are fine with the status quo on that."" That said, we found several examples in which Rauner explained his position on access to abortion during the campaign. In an appearance before Wauconda Township Republicans on Oct. 2, 2013, Rauner said: ""Abortion is a tragedy. It's a loss of life. To me that's not debatable. However, I do not advocate making it illegal. I can't, I won't, I'm not going to talk about making it illegal. I'm going to work and support efforts to make it safe and rare. Parental notification, late-term restrictions, teaching abstinence outside of marriage and strongly encouraging adoption as a far better alternative."" To residents of HeatherRidge community in Gurnee on Nov. 3, 2013: ""The reality is the right for a woman to choose is the national law and we're not gonna, that ain't gonna change in Illinois. I think we can agree on some common-sense ways where abortion can be more rare and safe. I support parental notification. I support late-term restrictions. I strongly encourage adoption as a far better alternative to abortion. There are things we can agree on to work on to try and get done, realistically ""I just think it's better for a woman and her physician and her family and her minister or priest make the decision than the government. That's my view. People can disagree with me. I respect that. But that's my view, it ain't gonna change."" It came up in an interview on the ""Big John and Amy Show"" on WIND-AM 560 on March 17, 2014: Amy Jacobson: ""If there was a possibility that the decision was passed from federal to state jurisdiction, what would your position be?"" Rauner: ""My position would be abortion is a tragedy but it should be an issue left to a woman with her physician and her family and her minister, not the government."" It wasn't just the candidate himself proclaiming his ""pro-choice"" bona fides during the campaign. Diana Rauner, head of the child advocacy concern the Ounce of Prevention Fund, became a strong spokeswoman for her husband's no-social-agenda agenda, especially where it concerned reproductive rights. ""You can trust him that there's no way he will ever let anything happen to our reproductive rights,"" Diana Rauner said in an interview with NBC5 political reporter Mary Ann Ahern on Sept. 26, 2014. ""I actually think this is a great opportunity in this race where we actually don't have to think about the social issues because both candidates are pro-choice."" The campaign featured a 30-second TV ad in which Diana, who claimed to be a Democrat, sought to bring Democrats to her husband's side by telling viewers, ""Bruce doesn't have a social agenda. He has an economic and educational agenda."" After an Oct. 24, 2014, event in Chicago in which feminist icon Gloria Steinem endorsed Quinn and accused Rauner of financially supporting anti-abortion causes and candidates. ""In terms of money and action, he is, in fact, anti-choice,"" Steinem said during her appearance with Quinn. Diana Rauner provided the response in an interview with then ABC-7 political reporter Charles Thomas. ""Bruce has a strong history of being a supporter of reproductive rights,"" she said. ""He's a social moderate and he's committed to education and has shown that commitment over the years."" Throughout the campaign, Rauner found himself in the strange position of being a Republican candidate forced to deny charges that he opposed abortion. Despite Rauner's many statements to the contrary, the Quinn campaign sought to portray Rauner as a major funder of anti-abortion candidates and organizations. The Chicago Tribune story on Steinem's appearance carried this rebuttal from Rauner's campaign: ""Rauner campaign aides said the candidate and wife Diana have donated money to abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood and the Roger Baldwin Foundation."" The Baldwin Foundation is a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union that litigates issues including reproductive rights. At the same time, however, Rauner was a heavy donor to Republican candidates and state and national Republican organizations that were firmly in the anti-abortion camp. Chicago Magazine detailed the political/ideological conflict of the Rauners in an article published the day before the 2014 election headlined, ""Is Bruce Rauner Pro-Choice, Anti-Choice, or Just an Opportunist?"" (I)t's interesting to look at the self-proclaimed Democrat, Diana, who has given in 2014 the max in the primary and/or general to several Republicans, some who are decidedly not socially moderate... Just a couple of examples: David McSweeney (abortion and gay marriage opponent), Mark Neerhof (against gay marriage). Diana has also given generously ($10,000 in 2012; $5,300 this time around) to the Republican Renaissance PAC of the late ultra-conservative Jack Roeser (anti abortion, anti gay marriage). Bruce has a much more extensive record of contributionsincluding $27.6 million to himself, $5 million to the state Republican party, and also, along with Diana, donations to McSweeney, Neerhof, and to Roeser's PAC. (Roeser, who died last June, was an early Rauner backer and a member of his gubernatorial exploratory committee.) Considering the contradictory nature of the Rauners' donations -- giving heavily to groups that support abortion rights and also to political candidates and organizations that oppose them -- it's reasonable to believe that some anti-abortion voters might have inferred anti-abortion leanings in candidate Rauner. But we found no evidence of Rauner himself attempting to hide his stance. In 2014, campaigning on maintaining the status quo on abortion was a viable option. State finances were a wreck and there appeared to be little pressure either way to change the state's laws on abortion. The election of Donald Trump, who stated an intent to overturn Roe v. Wade and turn the question of abortion's legality back to the states, changed that overnight. Almost immediately, Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly began advancing a bill to both keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade be overturned and provide insurance coverage for it under Medicaid and Illinois' state employee health insurance. ""I look at it as an insurance parity issue. There's no excuse about the cost,"" Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, said in December 2016. By packaging the trigger language and the expanded insurance coverage into a single bill, supporters of what became HB 40 effectively boxed Rauner by forcing the no-social-agenda governor to pick a side in the culture wars. He would infuriate pro-choice voters by either vetoing the bill outright or issuing an amendatory veto to strike the abortion insurance provision, the practical effect of which would be to kill the measure anyway. But signing HB 40 would be sure to antagonize much his Republican base, much of which remains passionately opposed to abortion. This was something Rauner had worked throughout the spring to avoid, at times sending out mixed signals about how he intended to handle the bill if lawmakers sent it to his desk. He made public statements in April promising to veto the bill as written. When he broke that promise, he faced the wrath of everyone from rank-and-file Republican lawmakers to Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich. Rauner, speaking haltingly and appearing physically uncomfortable, explained at his signing press conference that adding government funded insurance coverage was consistent with his pro-choice beliefs. ""I also believe that no woman should be forced to make a different decision than another woman make purely based on her income,"" Rauner said. ""I believe that a woman living with limited financial means should not be put in a position where she has to choose something different than a woman of higher income would be able to choose."" Bruce Rauner said his signing of a controversial abortion bill was consistent with his pro-choice principles and that he had never presented himself as anything but pro-choice. We looked through numerous campaign appearance videos, ads and news stories and found no evidence that Rauner ever tried to hide or downplay his pro-choice beliefs. In fact, his campaign touted the Rauners' support of abortion rights groups to rebut the charge that he was not pro-choice. Rauner sought anti-abortion voters by assuring them that, as governor, he had no social agenda and that ""the right for a woman to choose is the national law and that ain't gonna change in Illinois."" Politically, it proved to be a smart strategy that helped gain him election in 2014. By 2017, however, it became impossible to continue finessing the issue. In picking a side, Rauner declared that he has been consistent in declaring his pro-choice beliefs." Claim: I personally am pro-choice. I always have been. And I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor.
[EX A]:
2