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: Cost wasn’t mentioned, but given that this is light activity, we’ll rate this N//A. Still, the story could have explicitly said that the activities that are highlighted in this study probably have no cost associated with them. The story notes that engaging in light activity for 30 minutes per day reduced relative risk of mortality during the study period by 12 percent. It also noted that engaging in moderate activity for 30 minutes per day reduced that risk by 39 percent. But what about the absolute risk reduction? As the NIH has noted, the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the risks. For that reason, we won’t ding this story for not going into details regarding the risks associated with light physical activity. Nonetheless, it would have been nice to see the story mention that older adults may want to consult with a health professional to determine what types of activity they should (or should not) engage in. The story does briefly point out that this type of study can’t prove cause and effect, though it quickly pivoted to a “however…” to weaken that point. A limitation that should have made it into the news story is that individuals weren’t assigned a level of activity–rather they presumably went about their usual activities for a week (just a week) and the device captured it. The authors then categorized individuals into three categories of increasing level of activity. The challenge is that people who are less active, may be that way for a reason. Maybe they are sick, or have other issues that make them less active. And that might have been a temporary problem. This helps readers understand why the study can’t prove cause and effect. There’s really no disease mongering here, though there is one note we’d like to make that falls under this heading as well as anywhere. The story tells readers that increased physical activity is “linked to a lower risk of death.” Reader, we have bad news…death is inevitable. It would be more accurate to note that physical activity reduced the relative risk of dying during a given timeframe (in this case, the three-year period of observation). No outside sources are cited in the story, nor does the story make clear who funded the research (addressing potential conflicts of interest). The study compared different levels of physical activity. As such, it was comparative. However, there are other important lifestyle habits that affect mortality (cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol, for instance), and it would be interesting to know how helpful light activity is compared to these other lifestyle modifications. The story does a good job of defining what light activity means, which is important for understanding how accessible it is. Bike riding is a moderate activity, for example, whereas “strolling around the neighborhood” is a light activity. The story refers to national guidelines and some (nonspecific) “recent analyses,” noting that the “new study refutes that research.” But is this the first study to show benefits like these from engaging in low-intensity daily activities? No. For example, this 2014 study published in Preventive Medicine examined “examine[d] the association between household physical activity and all-cause mortality in a cohort of older adults from Spain.” The study relied on self-reporting from study participants, but found that — among other things — “Household physical activity may have benefits for longer survival in older women.” It would have been interesting to see the article look at how the new study compared to the 2014 study. Do the findings support each other? How do they differ? This sort of context would be valuable for readers. What does appear novel is the use of a device to assess activity–versus recording what people report as their activity levels. This is borderline. The story maps very closely to the news release. However, the story appears to incorporate quotes from study author Andrea LaCroix that are not found in the news release. Claim: Want to Live Longer? Every Movement Counts, Even Cleaning the House
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: Viral claims regarding the purported dangers of common household plants belonging to the genus Dieffenbachia (shown above) have been on the internet for years. One article (titled, colorfully, “My Son Died for This Damn Plant it Is Urgent That Everyone Knows, Kills a Child in 1 Minute and an Adult in 15! !”) appears identically across multiple websites and provides the following representative claim: Please read this carefully. My son died because he put a piece of leaf in his mouth and tongue and these swelled to suffocate. This plant is very common in many homes and offices. It is deadly poisonous and dangerous, to the point of killing a child in 1 minute and an adult in 15 minutes. If you touch it by chance you should never bring your fingers to your eyes, as this could cause permanent blindness. Warn your friends and family. This post does not seek to debunk that specific story, in part because it comes with no details that allow any aspect of it to be verified. Instead, this post addresses more broadly the risk posed to humans by this widespread potted plant. Dieffenbachia is indeed very common among household plants (it’s simple, and requires little sunlight), and eating its leaves or rubbing your eyes with your hands after coming into contact with the plant may indeed cause irritation, which in turn can cause the swelling described above. As far as the plant causing death, however, Ed Krenzelok, an emeritus professor of pharmacology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a former director of the Pittsburgh Poison Center who has researched Dieffenbachia toxicity specifically, is skeptical: I’ve never ever seen a fatality in my experience related to Dieffenbachia or any of the members of the Arum family. I’ve reviewed, virtually […] hundreds of thousands of cases in my career involving plants of this nature. The risk of irritation from Dieffenbachia is not news. People have been aware of its properties as an irritant since at least the first century A.D. Later, Jamaican slave traders — sadistically — rubbed the juice of these plants on the tongues of slaves, causing their mouths to become painfully swollen, as a form of punishment, making one of its common names “dumb cane“. The cause of this irritation comes from a chemical called calcium oxalate, which exists in varying concentrations across the entire plant kingdom, including a variety of food crops. In Dieffenbachia and some other groups of plants, this chemical forms microscopic (but razor-sharp) crystals called raphides that can rip apart and irritate tissues in your mouth or your eyes, as described by Krenzelok: Think of a micro-miniature balloon filled with crystal in the cells of the dieffenbachia and when you bite down on that, you squeeze the cells and the enzymes that are in there and the oxalate crystal are expelled. […] If you just touch a dieffenbachia or rub it on your arm or whatever, without breaking the integrity of the leaf, you’re not going to have a problem. Calcium oxalate is a ubiquitous chemical in nature. It is produced as a byproduct of a variety of cellular processes, and can form many different types of chemical structures depending on the species of plant. Not limited to plants, it is also produced as a byproduct in mammalian metabolism as well, and it is one of the most common minerals that form kidney stones. The risk to humans — at least, when speaking about the reactions described in these viral posts — would come not from the inherent toxicity of calcium oxalate, but from physical abrasion caused by these tiny sharp crystals, as explained by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia: Oxalate crystals can cause intense pain and swelling if they come in contact with the skin or mouth. When any part of these plants is chewed and swallowed, the crystals stab the sensitive tissues of the tongue, gums and throat, creating the sensation of biting into ground glass. Pain, difficulty swallowing, swelling and temporary hoarseness may occur. Poisoning from swallowing an oxalate-containing plant is rare because the intense mouth pain usually prevents children from eating a significant quantity of the plant. In terms of contact with the eyes, Krenzelok says he frequently saw eye irritation at his center, but never traumatic, permanent eye damage: I’ve seen a lot of cases where ocular exposure has occurred, but generally because people have a broken stem or something and they get some of the juice on their fingers and they happen to rub their eye and they have a little irritation. But I’ve never ever seen or observed a traumatic ocular exposure either. [In my experience], I’ve never seen loss of vision or anything of that nature. Claim: The household plant Dieffenbachia, one of the most common indoor plants, is so poisonous it can kill a child in one minute and an adult in 15 minutes.
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: "In metro Atlanta, the land of smog alerts and farmland-turned-to-suburbs, one local county makes a bold claim about its efforts to be environmentally conscious. DeKalb County, its website says, is ""the greenest county in America."" Let's put that on some recycled paper and send it to each of the county's estimated 750,000 residents. DeKalb's communications director, Burke Brennan, sent PolitiFact Georgia an e-mail making the case for the county. It includes: ""In DeKalb County, we are taking the lead on sustainability ...  we are one step closer to being the greenest county in America,"" DeKalb County Chief Executive Officer Burrell Ellis said in 2009 when the county was honored by the ARC. Many folks we discussed this claim with used phrases like ""bold"" or ""ambitious"" to describe DeKalb's audacity, not willing to publicly dismiss it. Some were willing to criticize the claim. ""That's all a good case for them to be one of the greenest counties in Georgia,"" said Mark Woodall, Georgia chapter chairman of the Sierra Club, which claims to be the largest grassroots environmental organization in the state. ""DeKalb being the greenest county in America seems pretty unthinkable."" Being ""green,"" means many things these days. Some organizations have occasionally released surveys rankings America's greenest cities, but we found few similar rankings of counties. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit organization that works to improve health and health care for Americans, earlier this year looked at the environmental health of each U.S. county. One category was physical health. The foundation used data put together by researchers from the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the physical health of each county. The criteria included how many days the air was unhealthy, the number of days the air was unhealthy due to ozone, access to healthy foods and how many liquor stores were in a county. DeKalb ranked near the bottom of Georgia counties, 153rd, in terms of physical health. Some categories that DeKalb is bragging about are difficult to compare. In other areas, such as the number of LEED-certified buildings, Dekalb has competition. Gwinnett had three LEED-certifiied structures, according to the U.S. Green Building Council. DeKalb is an Energy Star partner -- a federal effort to protect the environment through energy-efficient practices -- but so are Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties and the city of Atlanta. On hiking and biking trails, DeKalb may run into some argument about having the most in Georgia. Cobb County, for example, lists about 75 miles of trails within its cities and unincorporated areas. It was suggested we look at Arlington County, Va. to find another county that could make a case it is greener than DeKalb. The county has a page on its website with more than a dozen awards and recognition for its sustainable community and environmental efforts. Arlington won two National Association of Counties Achievement Awards this year for its recycling efforts. That organization also named Arlington its Outstanding Civil Engineering Project award in 2006 for its Green Building Program. Other counties, like Boulder, Colo., have goals such as reducing outdoor water use by 50 percent by using indigenous plants and recycling 50 percent of construction waste. DeKalb's case was muddied in December when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined $453,000 for 836 sewage spills over the last five years. The EPA estimates there are about 40,000 spills from the nation's 25,000 sewage systems a year. California officials reported about 2,000 spills into the San Francisco Bay in 2008. Brennan noted the day after the fine was announced, county commissioners voted 6-1 to spend $1.345 billion to make repairs to its water and sewer system, nearly twice as much money as the EPA recommended. DeKalb taxpayers will pay higher water and sewer bills to help fund the work. Despite the fine, Brennan stuck by DeKalb's claim. ""Nobody here is claiming perfection, but based on the programs, awards, designations and initiatives DeKalb has in place and ongoing, I am sticking with the motto 'DeKalb is the greenest county in America,' "" Brennan told us in an e-mail. ""After all, 'Cowboy Capital of the World' was already taken,"" added Brennan, referring to Oakdale, Calif.  DeKalb has certainly tried to make its mark as an environmentally conscious county. But DeKalb's claim of being the ""greenest county"" in the nation ignores critical facts that would give a visitor to its web site a different impression." Claim: The Greenest County in America.
Example Output:
0

