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: A Microsoft PowerPoint file that made the rounds of the Internet in 2003 presented the viewer with a chilling slide show: four pictures of a pretty young woman with her friends and family, a post-accident photograph of the charred remains of a car, nine images of a horribly disfigured woman pursuing her daily routine (sharing time with her father, receiving medical treatment, eating, reading), and finally a reproduction of a “Don’t Drink and Drive” poster from the Texas Department of Public Safety bearing pre- and post-disfigurement photos of the young woman under the legend “Not everyone who gets hit by a drunk driver dies”:  This was one of the cases we really wished would have turned out to be someone’s sick idea of hoax. Unfortunately, the story was all too real. The slide show documented what happened to Jacqueline Saburido, a 20-year-old woman who had taken a break from attending college in Venezuela to come to the United States and study English. Her HelpJacqui website described the horrific accident that turned her life upside-down:  Early on Sunday morning September 19, 1999, Jacqui — then 20 years old — and four friends were on their way home from a birthday party. Reggie Stephey, an 18-year-old high school student, was on his way home from drinking beer with some buddies. On a dark road on the outskirts of Austin, Texas, Reggie’s SUV veered into the Oldsmobile carrying Jacqui and the others. Two passengers in the car were killed at the scene and two were rescued. Within minutes, the car caught fire. Jacqui was pinned in the front seat on the passenger side. She was burned over 60% of her body; no one thought she could survive. But Jacqui lived. Her hands were so badly burned that she no longer can use them. She lost her hair, her ears, her nose, her left eyelid and much of her vision. She has had more than 40 operations since the crash and has many more to go. A May 2002 profile in The Austin American-Statesman also described the terrible extent of Jacqui’s injuries:  At a distance Jacqui looks old. Up close, ageless. She has a baggy neckchin and thin crumpled lips. Her cheeks are splotchy and rough in places, smooth in others. Where her right ear should be, she has a slender crescent of cartilage around a pea-size black hole. On the left side, she has only a hole. Her nostrils are ragged, torn. A flap of skin hides her left eye. For more than two years, the eyeball floated naked in the socket, mostly blind but perpetually staring behind a clear plastic goggle. Her right eye sees behind a veil of scar. Her burned skin can’t sweat or protect her from heat and cold. It feels hot and tight, like having a sunburn. Scars run down her body, halting at her knees and before her size 7-1/2 feet, which the fire never touched. She has learned to use her feet like hands — her toes stroke a blanket’s softness and test shower water. Her fingers are amputated between the knuckle and the first joint. On her right hand, they are fused together like a mitten. Nerve damage has left parts of her body numb. She can make out some texture with the bottom of her right palm. Her left hand feels only pinpricks — “like a thousand needles,” she says. Her hands hurt every day, but Jacqui doesn’t take painkillers. (The other driver, Reggie Stephey, was arrested and charged with two counts of intoxication manslaughter. He was found guilty in 2001 and served seven years in prison.) As Jacqui’s web site noted, she continued to receive medical treatment for her extensive injuries in Louisville, Kentucky, where she and her father Amadeo lived, and specialists were performing a series of skin grafts and working to rebuild her right hand. Jacqui was eventually able to resume her studies and enroll in intensive English classes, and she established a private bank account to receive donations to help pay her living and medical expenses. On 24 November 2003, Jacqui garnered national attention when she appeared as a guest on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and then again in 2009 when Orpah counted down her most memorable guests of the past 25 years:  Jacqueline Saburido passed away at the age of 40 in April 2019, but she left behind a legacy of inspiring “hope among a legion of followers across the globe” in her roles as a motivational speaker and anti-drunken driving spokeswoman:  “I thought she was the bravest, most courageous person I have ever met,” said Janet Lea, former senior vice president of the Sherry Matthews Group, which organized the campaign for TxDOT. “With all of her injuries, she was still wickedly funny and also willing to speak to anybody who would listen to her about the dangers of drinking and driving.” The TV spot, with Saburido’s before and after images, “was a real punch in the gut,” Lea said. “It just went nuts. She got thousands and thousands and thousands of letters and was interviewed by media all over the world.” An educational kit, which included a video and a teacher’s guide, was sent to every middle and high school in Texas. Bentley Nettles, executive director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, said: “Jacqui did not let the tragic circumstances of her accident diminish her, instead using her life story as a lesson on the importance of preventing drunken driving. We are eternally grateful for Jacqui’s bravery, her compassion and her drive to help others. Saburido was featured in safety campaigns as far away as Australia, her scarred face persuading a generation of students that drunken driving has consequences. Claim: Jacqueline Saburido, the victim of a drunk driving accident, seeks donations to help with the expenses of medical treatment for her extensive injuries.
A:
1