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 Input:
Paragraph: "Hillary Clinton's near-collapse at a Sept. 11 memorial service and the subsequent revelation that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia two days earlier has people wondering about the health of the two major presidential candidates. The Clinton campaign promised more medical data on her health, and Republican Donald Trump pledged to release details of a recent checkup. Both candidates have already released letters from their doctors saying they are healthy enough to be president. Clinton’s team argues that Trump has released less information about his health than Clinton. In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN, Clinton said her two-page 2015 letter from her physician is consistent with what presidential candidates have released in the past. ""You know, you've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama"" when the two ran for president, Clinton said. ""Donald Trump's doctor said he'd be the healthiest president in history. That's just not even serious."" When Cooper asked what additional information she would be supplying, Clinton did not offer any details. ""Well, we're going to be releasing more information, and I think it's fair to say, we've already met the standard of disclosure of past presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and President Obama."" Actually, there is no ""standard"" for the type of medical information that should be released. The experts we consulted agreed. But Clinton's disclosures are on the same level as Obama and Romney in previous elections. ""There is no 'standard' of medical disclosure, just whatever the voting public is comfortable with,"" said Jerald Podair, professor of history at Lawrence University in Wisconsin. ""This means, of course, that as much secrecy as possible has been the historical norm."" Thus, he said, the public didn't know about Grover Cleveland's cancer, Franklin Roosevelt's paralysis or John Kennedy's Addison’s disease. ""All kept the true nature of their illnesses secret from the American public. Obviously, is is harder to do so today, but as Hillary (‘darn these allergies’) Clinton has shown, the system can still be gamed."" ""This is an imaginary standard set up by candidates,"" said Brooks Simpson, a presidential historian at Arizona State University. Interest in candidate medical records has varied over time. There was a lot of interest when John McCain ran against Obama in 2008. McCain was 71 and had a history of skin cancer. He released 1,173 pages of records going back to 2000. In contrast, medical records were not much of an issue in 2004 when George W. Bush, then 58, sought re-election against John Kerry, then 60. Both were known to be big fitness enthusiasts. Bush had received regular checkups as president but that year decided to have his physical after the election. As CNN reported at the time, ""Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry have released their full medical records, but there isn't much public pressure for either man to release more details. Americans may want a healthy commander-in-chief, but 61 percent say the president has the same rights as other citizens to keep medical records private, compared to just 38 percent in favor of releasing all information that might affect his ability to serve."" It's more of an issue today, in part, because both candidates are so old. ""These people are in the Ronald Reagan category,"" said Simpson. Trump, if elected, would be the oldest person to assume the presidency. Clinton would be the second oldest behind Reagan. ""Maybe 70 is the new 60, but these people are old,"" Simpson said. ""Neither one has really satisfied issues of disclosure in the public mind,"" although Clinton has been more forthcoming, he said. ""Trump's efforts have been pretty feeble. But the incident on Sunday and the cough just illustrated a personal attack narrative and has given traction to an accusation that her health is less than ideal. This is a way not just to raise questions about candidate health, but about candidate transparency."" When we contacted the Clinton campaign, spokesman Josh Schwerin acknowledged that there is no real standard. He said the candidate was simply referring to the examples of Obama and Romney as a relevant point of comparison. How do their medical summaries compare? Candidate Obama Romney Clinton Trump Year 2008 2012 2015 2015 Words in doctor letter 280 535 578 174 Blood pressure 90/60 130/80 100/65 110/65 Heart rate 60 40 72 Not mentioned Triglycerides 44 179 69 Not mentioned Total cholesterol 173 169 195 Not mentioned Good cholesterol 68 Not mentioned 64 Not mentioned Bad cholesterol 96 Not mentioned 118 Not mentioned Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 0.6 Normal Not relevant .015 Allergies mentioned? No Yes Yes No Past health problems detailed? No Yes Yes Yes Family history mentioned? Yes Yes Yes No Because there is no standard, the doctors of different candidates included different levels of detail. The letters for all four candidates gave blood pressure. The letters for Obama, Romney and Clinton offered at least some blood test results, such as total cholesterol. Trump's does not. Family history, a key factor for predicting a person's lifespan or potential health problems, is missing from Trump's letter. The doctors for Clinton and Romney go into more detail about the candidate's past health problems, but that may be because they had some issues in the past. We don't know about Trump's history, but the detailed 2014 health report for Obama once he became president says he's had no significant medical problems, including no surgeries. The most detailed template was Obama’s annual presidential physical. The 2014 report contains far more information than he released when he first ran in 2008. It talks about immunizations. It lists medications (without giving doses), a fasting blood sugar level and cholesterol counts. There's also discussion of the status of his heart, lungs, eyes, head neck, bones, muscles, nerves and skin. ""Probably Hillary is about right since the standard is that most politicians conceal their debilitating illnesses or fabricate (maybe exaggerate) how wonderfully healthy they are,"" said Bert Rockman, professor emeritus of political science at Purdue University. Because of their age, ""there is bound to be something wrong with each of them despite Trump's likely-dictated note to his doctor, which meets the standard of a school boy note."" ""Of course, some candidates are in terrific shape — Romney and Obama, for example, and Carter,"" he said. ""And you likely wouldn't run for president if you were seriously (physically) debilitated,"" putting the cases of Kennedy and Roosevelt aside. ""In other words,"" said Rockman, ""the bar is really low, and Hillary likely met it by historical standards."" Our ruling Clinton said, ""You've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama."" If Romney and Obama exemplify a standard, then the information Clinton has provided to the public is on a comparable level. But Clinton's statement implies a standard that doesn’t really exist, according to the experts. And both the quality and quantity of information on presidential candidates has varied widely. Claim: You've got a medical report on me that meets the same standard as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: CES is allowing space for sex tech companies as a one-year trial. At the show, such companies were scattered throughout the health and wellness section, near startups pitching fitness trackers and infrared saunas. Lora DiCarlo, a startup that pushed for changes after organizers revoked its award, showed off its Osé robotic “personal massager.” It’s one of a dozen companies at the show focused on vibrators, lube dispensers and other sex tech products. Founders of these startups say their products are about empowerment and wellness for women, something they say has often been overlooked in tech. The historically male-dominated tech trade show has received criticism in past years for having an all-male lineup of speakers and for previously allowing scantily clad “booth babes,” fostering a “boys’ club” reputation. Besides allowing sex tech, CES organizers brought in an official “equality partner,” The Female Quotient, to help ensure gender diversity. The Female Quotient, which trains companies in equality practices, will hold a conference for women during the four-day show, which opened Tuesday. “It’s been a process,” said Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Technology Association, which puts on CES. It’s been a longer process for many sex tech companies to convince investors that they are part of a growing trend that has enough customers. Much of the push has come from the startups’ female founders and from younger consumers who talk more openly about sexuality. As with other technologies, some exhibitors including Lora DiCarlo had prominent booths at CES, while others such as the wearable vibrator company Crave were tucked away. Crave’s exhibit included a camper with a “Build-a-Vibe-Workshop,” where attendees could get an engraved vibrator to wear around their neck. Sex tech has existed in some form for decades. But the gates really began to open in 2016, said Andrea Barrica, founder of sex education site O.school. That year, several other “fem tech” companies made progress in areas such as menstruation and menopause. Those paved the way for sex tech to grow and get investors interested. “Larger institutions are starting to take note, all the way from VC firms to large Fortune 100 companies,” said Barrica, who recently published the book “Sextech Revolution: The Future of Sexual Wellness.” Large institutions like CES had no choice but to look at sex tech, she said. The journey hasn’t been easy. Sex tech founders, many of them women, recount being turned down by dozens of investors. They faced decency arguments and entrenched corporate standards that equated them with porn. But investors are becoming more receptive, said Cindy Gallop, a former advertising executive turned sex tech entrepreneur and founder of the website MakeLoveNotPorn. “It’s entirely because of our refusal to allow the business world to put us down,” she said. Founders insist that their devices — ranging from vibrators to lube dispensers to accessories — have effects outside the bedroom. “Sexual health and wellness is health and wellness,” said Lora DiCarlo, CEO and founder of the company of the same name. “It does way more than just pleasure. It’s immediately connected to stress relief, to better sleep, to empowerment and confidence.” DiCarlo’s $290 Osé device has gotten $3 million worth of advance sales, bolstered in part by the attention it received after CES organizers overturned a decision by an independent panel of judges to give the vibrator a prestigious Innovation Honoree Award in the robotics and drone category. The organizers, CTA, told the company it reserved the right to rescind awards for devices deemed “immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image.” DiCarlo and other female founders pushed back for banning them but allowing humanoid sex robots meant to serve men the previous year. Following criticism, CES organizers ultimately  reinstated the award and apologized. A few months later, the show announced policy changes such as a dress code to prevent skimpy outfits and new “Innovation for All” sessions with senior diversity officials. Osé began shipping to customers this month. DiCarlo said the company is planning to introduce new devices, including less expensive options. Sex tech companies still face major barriers to growth. Polly Rodriguez, CEO of sexual wellness company Unbound, said the company is profitable and customers are more open about buying products than they once were. But she said she still faces roadblocks advertising on social media, and many traditional investors snub the company. “Things are better, but there’s just still this genuine fear of female sexuality more broadly within the institutional side of technology,” she said. And while Gallop offered to speak at CES, conference organizers declined, saying sex tech was not a part of its conference programming. ___ AP Business Writer Joseph Pisani contributed to this report. ___ AP’s CES coverage: https://apnews.com/Consumerelectronics Claim: Sex tech from women-led startups pops up at CES gadget show.

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: There was no discussion of costs. Were people to begin taking B vitamins in the quantities necessary to show improvement along the lines of what has been seen in some of the studies mentioned, B vitamins could become a lifelong treatment with significant cumulative costs. The slant of the story was to question the wisdom in augmenting vitamin B intake in light of the studies failing to demonstrate benefit. The story itself, however, reported on several pieces of evidence over time rather than reporting on the results of a specific study or studies. Where it did provide numbers on benefits, it did so in a clear and cautious way. For example, it noted “a recent study in which brain atrophy (or shrinkage, which occurs in older people who are losing brain function) slowed by 30% in elderly patients with both high homocysteine levels and mild cognitive impairment who took a B vitamin pill daily for two years. Brain shrinkage occurred at a rate of about 0.75% in the people taking B vitamins in the study, compared with a rate of 1.1% per year in a group that took a placebo.” By including the actual percentages for people in both groups, the story shows the reader that the shrinkage was not dramatic to begin with and that the difference between the two groups could also be described as a 0.26 percentage point difference. The story did include information about possible side effects and harms associated with excessive consumption of B vitamins. The story provided a reasonable description of several studies in which outcomes were not changed with vitamin B supplementation. There was a useful quote by one of the researches indicating that only a minority of studies showed any indication of benefit from increasing vitamin B intake. We wish it had taken a little more care in making clear distinctions between the different populations being studied. In some cases, the studies were focused on anyone of advanced age, while in others they were focused specifically on Alzheimer’s patients, but there was no discussion in the story about whether these differences may also have accounted for the different findings among the studies. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story detailed several studies of the relation between the B vitamins and cognitive impairment; it included quotes from two researchers  (Haan and Miller) in the field who are at different institutions but have several studies that they have worked on and published together. There was no discussion of how the fortification of common foods in the supply chain, such as grains, flour, cereal, energy bars and drinks, has affected the levels of B vitamin. There was also no mention of other specific therapies to stop cognitive decline. The story described the urge to rush out and purchase B vitamins, which is suggestive of their ready availability. The story neglected to mention that many foods are already fortified with B vitamins, which may already cover the recommended intake levels for many readers. This story provided a nice overview of what is known about B vitamins in relation to age- and disease- related cognitive decline. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It is not clear why this information about the long-term research interest of two local scientists is news right now, but it is an interesting piece nonetheless. Claim: Vitamin B and its role in improving memory

Ex Output:

2


