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'.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 1
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: About 1.3 million people worldwide died of TB in 2017. A further 300,000 people with both HIV and TB died in last year, according to World Health Organization figures released this month. Once referred to as ‘consumption’ because of the way sufferers appear to waste away, tuberculosis has been known for centuries. The bacterium responsible for TB was discovered 136 years ago and the development of an effective antibiotic helped rich countries to largely contain the disease after World War II. Still, the U.N. health agency estimates that about 10 million people worldwide become newly infected with TB each year, mostly in poor countries where access to health care is limited. “It really is a global epidemic,” said Dr. Tereza Kasaeva, who heads WHO’s program to combat TB. Speaking ahead of a high-level meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Kasaeva said the U.N.’s target of eradicating tuberculosis worldwide by 2030 “is very ambitious given that for now progress is too slow.” Like HIV, tuberculosis remains a highly stigmatized illness, preventing some sufferers from seeking treatment. Experts are particularly concerned about the rising number of people contracting drug-resistant variants of TB, many of which aren’t diagnosed properly. Treating them can be costly and arduous, requiring years of medication with strong side effects. Dr. Ralf Otto-Knapp of the German Central Committee to Combat Tuberculosis, a group established in the late 19th century when the disease was still widespread in much of Europe, warned against complacency about the disease in an age of global travel. “Because of the increasing mobility in society it also affects economically more powerful countries,” he said. “We need a joint political will and the necessary resources to fight tuberculosis effectively.” Kasaeva said she hoped leaders attending the New York meeting Wednesday will commit to closing the growing gap between the amount of money available and the billions more required to tackle the disease. Campaigners applauded a recent decision by the World Health Organization to recommend a change in the way drug-resistant tuberculosis is treated, prioritizing oral drugs over injectable medication. The group Doctors Without Borders said such treatment can reduce debilitating side effects, help improve cure rates and cut the number of deaths, but noted that it requires U.S. pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which makes the key drug bedaquiline, to reduce its price in low- and middle-income countries with high rates of drug-resistant TB. The company has already sharply reduced costs for the drug in some countries, but in others a six-month course of treatment can cost several thousand dollars — far more than most people can afford. Companies have been reluctant to invest in developing TB medication — with only two new drugs coming onto the market in the past 50 years. Claim: Governments to discuss tackling tuberculosis at UN summit.
A:
2