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'.

Example input: 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
Example output: 1
Example explanation: 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: "On the hot-button issue of immigration, there are few figures as outspoken about Rhode Island's policies as state Rep. Peter Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston. Two years ago, Palumbo released a set of figures he compiled estimating what undocumented immigrants cost the state each year, how many murders they commit and the strain they put on our health care system. The report was never substantiated, but Palumbo continues to cite these and other similar  figures. Palumbo and Republican state Rep. Joseph Trillo, of Warwick -- who also supports stricter enforcement of immigration laws -- went to Arizona earlier this month to see for themselves the problems that the state is having with illegal immigration. While there, they appeared together on Fox News' ""On the Record With Greta Van Susteren"" to discuss Rhode Island immigration policy. Criticizing the state's social service programs, Palumbo said: ""We have something called the anchor embryos. We have such liberal programs where we take care of you. If you're an illegal woman you get to Rhode Island, you go to the Department of Human Services, they give you either Neighborhood Health [Plan], United[Health] or Blue Cross. They give you a card with $400 a month on it and allow you to spend it on anything but food because, sit tight, we're going to give you another $250 a month or $275 a month to spend on food."" We asked Palumbo about his source for such exact dollar figures. He said he got each piece of information from Gary Alexander, the head of Rhode Island's Office of Health and Human Services, in a lengthy conversation they had about two years ago when Palumbo first became interested in the issue. Alexander told us he recalls briefly discussing the topic of benefits for undocumented pregnant women with Palumbo at some point, but he said he never cited any of the specific figures that Palumbo lists, nor would he, because they're just not accurate. ""I don't even know how he would get totals like $400 or $250,"" Alexander said. Health care policy for undocumented pregnant women So what do state and federal policies say about benefits for pregnant women who are in Rhode Island illegally? First, they are eligible for health insurance under RIte Care, the state's health insurance program for low-income families, according to state officials. And federal law dictates that they must be given a choice between providers, Alexander said. Until just a few weeks ago, those choices included Neighborhood Health Plan, UnitedHealthCare, or Blue Cross & Blue Shield. In August, Blue Cross announced it would no longer participate in the program. Women who are pregnant are not required to declare their immigration status when enrolling in RIte Care, assuming they meet the income eligibility requirements. The way Alexander and federal officials explain it, the rationale is this: because the child will be born in the United States, he or she will be an American citizen and therefore eligible for health benefits. Prenatal care is considered an extension of those benefits. ""It's not based on the mother, it's based on the child who will soon be a citizen. If we don't give [the mother] prenatal care, something could happen to the child,"" leading to even greater costs for the state, said Alexander, who was appointed by Governor Donald Carcieri, a Republican. Even if the DHS did not offer health benefits, state law would still require hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone, Alexander added. The mother's health benefits end three months after delivery. Palumbo is therefore correct on what he says about free health care. Cash assistance policy Next Palumbo says undocumented pregnant women get ""a card with $400 a month on it"" that they are ""allow[ed] to spend [on] anything but food."" Sounds a bit like a state gift certificate to us, but Palumbo says he was referring to cash assistance welfare benefits. Again, he said Alexander told him that every undocumented pregnant woman who seeks state help gets $400 a month. Not so, said the DHS secretary, who said he couldn't imagine where Palumbo could  have gotten such specific figures. Pregnant women who are in Rhode Island illegally are not eligible for welfare benefits and even if they were, how much they get would depend on their income, said OHHS Associate Director David Burnett. Under the Bush-administration's Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, anyone seeking cash benefits or other federal assistance must provide identifying documentation proving their legal status, according to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It's important to note that, as with healthcare benefits, once the child is born, as a citizen, he or she will be eligible for welfare benefits, which would presumably be delivered to the mother on behalf of the child. But the mother herself does not qualify for any subsidy. So Palumbo is incorrect to say pregnant women get welfare benefits. Food stamps policy The same is true for the federal Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, more commonly known as the food stamp program. Despite the figures Palumbo cites, undocumented pregnant women are not eligible for ""$250 a month or $275 a month,"" or any other amount. Under the federal Deficit Reduction Act, without proof of citizenship, they can't receive the benefit. Once born, their children will qualify to enroll in the SNAP program. According to the University of Rhode Island's Feinstein Center for a Hunger Free America, the maximum is $200 a month per qualifying member. But the subsidy will not cover the mother. Again, Palumbo is wrong. Finally, there is a clear implication in Palumbo's statement that Rhode Island's benefits are more generous than those in other states. At one point in the Van Susteren interview, Palumbo suggested that undocumented pregnant women from elsewhere are ""headed to our state"" to take advantage of these programs. Federal law now dictates that undocumented people -- pregnant or otherwise -- are not eligible for either welfare assistance or food stamps here, or anywhere. By the same token, undocumented pregnant women in Rhode Island are eligible to receive health care benefits, but that is also true in some other states. While federal law won't cover undocumented people, in general, it gives states the option to use federal CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) to cover prenatal benefits. To imply that Rhode Island is the only state where this is the case is not correct. In all, two of the three facts Palumbo offered to Van Susteren were wrong. Worse, he cited as his source an official -- Gary Alexander -- who said he never said any of those specifics, in part because they are not true. Palumbo used very exact numbers on national television and he stated them with the kind of confidence that could lead viewers to believe he had done his homework and knew what he was talking about. He didn't and he doesn't, at least in two of three counts." Claim: "Rhode Island gives undocumented pregnant women health insurance, plus a cash card ""with $400 a month on it"" and ""$250 a month or $275 a month to spend on food."
A:
0