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'.

Q: Paragraph: "President Donald Trump took a swipe at former President Barack Obama as he renewed his pledge to tackle the opioid epidemic, which claims the lives of tens of thousands of people a year. Trump said that opioid overdose deaths have nearly quadrupled since 1999, speaking after a briefing on the issue. But while deaths soared, Trump said overall drug prosecutions declined in recent years -- a trend Trump vowed to reverse. ""We're going to be bringing them up and bringing them up rapidly,"" he said Aug. 8. ""At the end of 2016, there were 23 percent fewer than in 2011. So they looked at this scourge, and they let it go by, and we're not letting it go by."" We found that Trump is correct that federal drug prosecutions declined from 2011 to 2016 under Obama, but he lacks evidence to prove that’s the culprit for the opioid overdose crisis. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the record. The Justice Department filed drug charges against 24,638 defendants in 2016, down 23 percent from 2011, according to the Pew Research Center, which analyzed federal data. The data reflects felonies and some serious misdemeanors. But that’s overall drug prosecutions, not just prosecutions related to opioids. And it only includes federal prosecutions -- the vast majority of criminal prosecutions are in state courts. We found that the drop was due to some of the specific actions the Obama administration took to stop the prosecution of low-level offenders. Pew noted that in 2013, then-Attorney General Eric Holder directed federal prosecutors to ensure that each case they brought served ""a substantial federal interest."" Holder mandated that certain low-level nonviolent drug offenders, with no ties to gangs or cartels, would no longer face mandatory minimum sentences. He called for more treatment and alternatives to prison. Also in 2013, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum to federal attorneys related to prioritizing marijuana prosecutions. He directed attorneys to focus on cartels or other criminal organizations and the use of violence to distribute the drug. Federal marijuana prosecutions fell to 5,158 in 2016, down 39 percent from five years earlier, Pew found. Trump implied that lack of prosecutions likely led to a worsening of the opioid crisis. But experts we contacted had a different view. ""No serious analyst would argue that federal prosecutions have consequences for opioid overdoses,"" said University of Maryland criminology professor Peter Reuter. ""The drivers of that increase are the arrival of fentanyl, since about 2012, and the overprescription of opioids before it. There has been some decline in heroin retail prices. But no prior effort against high-level distributors and traffickers has ever had sustained success at the retail level."" Some drug experts including Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management, have criticized Obama for taking too long to address the crisis, but not because of a lack of prosecutions. ""Obama deserves blame for neglecting the epidemic and failing to ensure a coordinated federal response,"" Kolodny said. ""I can think of several areas where it's fair to criticize him. The decline in federal drug prosecutions is not one of them."" Trump has a point that the Obama administration was slow to respond to the opioid crisis, said Jon Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon professor and expert on drug policy. ""Anyone looking at the basic death stats knew we had a problem by 2000,"" Caulkins said. ""So this is a national disgrace, and Obama was in power for eight of the more recent years, and if ‘the buck stops on the president’s desk’ then it’s fair to put some blame there."" A September 2016 report from the Obama administration’s Justice Department found that prosecutors could help combat the epidemic by prioritizing prosecution of heroin distributors and of medical professionals who improperly prescribe opioids. The report also stated that federal prosecution had ""lagged,"" and more prosecutors were needed. The report noted, however, that investigations ""can be difficult when the victim is deceased and the source of the drugs is not immediately obvious."" Trump said ""at the end of 2016, there were 23 percent fewer federal prosecutions than in 2011, so (prosecutors) looked at this surge and they let it go by."" Trump made the statement in the context of rising opioid overdose deaths. An analysis of data shows that federal drug charges overall declined 23 percent between 2011 and 2016. But that data doesn’t tell us anything about opioid cases specifically. Where Trump misses the mark is his suggestion that the drop in prosecutions is to blame for the opioid epidemic, which started before Obama’s tenure and then grew worse during his presidency. Obama could have done more earlier to address the epidemic, experts said, but there is no evidence that his strategy on federal drug prosecutions led to a spike in opioid overdose deaths." Claim: At the end of 2016, there were 23 percent fewer federal prosecutions than in 2011, so (prosecutors) looked at this scourge (opioid deaths) and they let it go by.

A: 1
****
Q: Paragraph: "As many Americans grapple with the new reality of sheltering in place, social media posts have pointed to a purportedly stark choice in Russia. A March 23 Instagram post said, ""Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."" I love that A post shared by  Val (@itsvalos) on Mar 22, 2020 at 11:27am PDT The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Is this something Putin said, or did? No. The idea appears to stem from a tweet by an Indian comedian whose account goes by the name Nasir Chinioti. The tweet says, ""#Covid_19 #StayAtHome Vladimir Putin has given Russians two options. You stay at home for 2 weeks or you go to jail for 5 years. No middle ground."" Two days later, the author of the original post tweeted, ""Just joke,"" with three emojis. (Oddly, many social media posts circulating didn’t include the second part of the tweet, even though it’s even more eye-catching: ""RUSSIA: Vladimir Putin has Dropped 800 tigers and Lions all over the Country to push people to stay home.. Stay Safe Everyone!!"") Just joke 😜😎😷 Looking through credible media reports, we found no evidence that Putin had given Russians the draconian choice between lockdown or jail. ""Schools, sports facilities, and other gathering places are closed, and it seems Moscow asked residents over 65 to stay home, from March 26 to April 14, but they offered them the equivalent of $50 in two payments, one at the beginning and one at the end,"" said Yoshiko M. Herrera, a political scientist at the University Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in Russia. ""He also ordered that phone and internet not be shut off and that other housing-related fines not be collected."" Herrera said that these measures, plus earlier measures to close its long border with China, seem appropriate, but she added that ""there are some big caveats."" ""There is a lot of skepticism and criticism of the statistics,"" she said, citing allegations of undercounting and misreporting coronavirus deaths in other categories. In recent days, the BBC reported, the infection rate in Russia ""has begun to escalate even according to official figures."" Social media posts have said ""Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years."" Credible news accounts and experts on the region see no evidence of such a draconian choice in Russia. The claim appears to stem from a post by an Indian comedian, who later clarified that this was intended as a ""joke.""" Claim: “Putin has stated: Russian citizens (have) 2 options: Stay home for 15 days or in jail for 5 years.”

A: 0
****
Q: Paragraph: The story makes no mention of costs. Instead by saying, “could be on the market and available for thousands of patients in about five years’ time” it leaves readers with the impression that cost is not an issue. This is exactly the kind of device that an insurance company might put on its “ineligible” list. A quick review of the business media suggests the cost of the device will exceed $75,000 if it becomes commercially available. according to this Medical Device Technology Alert. It is hard to imagine why this important fact was overlooked in the story. Beyond saying in the lead that three people were able to “see shapes and objects,” there is not much else in the story to help readers understand the levels of vision improvements that were seen and how those should be compared to the preexisting conditions or other treatments. Then, confusingly, the story narrows its focus to just one patient saying, “one blind patient who had the device implanted was able to identify and find objects placed on a table in front of him, and was able to walk around a room independently. He could even read a clock face and differentiate between seven shades of grey, the researchers said. Tests were conducted starting from seven to nine days after the device was implanted.” It’s tough when writing a story about a study this small to put hard numbers to the benefits, but even some acknowledgment of this limitation would have been better than some of the overly optimistic sentiments expressed. The study itself and the press released provided more ways for the story to quantify the benefits. The story provides absolutely no information on the implant requirements for the device nor the potential downsides associated with this surgical procedure. There are some caveats tossed into this story, but they can’t overcome the hype. The story says in the lead that the implant “allowed three blind patients to see shapes and objects within days of treatment”. The next sentence says, “Experts described the study results as phenomenal”. The story does deserve credit for saying in the lead that only “three blind patients” saw vision improvement, but the story does little else to describe the limitations of the study or to place it in any context. The story engages in disease mongering by throwing in some sketchy numbers about the frequency of the disease. It says the device “could eventually change the lives of up to 200,000 people worldwide who suffer from blindness due to a degenerative eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa.” Later it says, “Retinitis pigmentosa in a genetic eye condition that leads to blindness and affects about 1 in 4,000 people worldwide.” By our math, 200,000 out of 6.8 billion people worldwide means that 1 out of every 34,500 people is affected. And if we’re just talking about adults, that number drops to 1 out of every 22,105 people, a far cry from 1 out of every 4,000. If it were truly one out of every 4,000 people worldwide, that would mean that 1.1 million people have the disease. The story does quote one presumed independent source, Robert Maclaren, a professor of Ophthalmology at Britain’s Oxford University. In the above mentioned Medical Technology Alert, the manufacturer announced that Dr. Maclaren will be the lead investigator on a clinical study expected to enroll six subjects to advance this same retinal implant technology. As a result, Dr. Maclaren can hardly be described as an independent expert. Overall, we felt that the story was missing a strong, independent analysis. Had the reporter talked with more researchers in the field or more clinicians, perhaps the story would have had a more thoughtful tone. The story mentions that there are other implants, saying, “Other types of retinal implants, known as epiretinal implants, sit outside the retina and because they bypass the intact light-sensitive structures in the eyes they require the patient to wear an external camera and processor unit.” But that’s not a true comparison, nor does it provide readers with the true picture of how much R&D is happening right now in this field. As is often the case in medicine, surgical options and devices are not the only solution. Lowly old Vitamin A is often the first step for treating retinitis pigmentosa. The story does a credible job noting that the device is under study and not commercially available. Unfortunately it also suggests, based on the manufacturer’s statement, that the device in a very early stage of development will be available in 5 years. The hyperbole used is indefensible – “the device could become routine for some kinds of blindness in five years” and “could eventually change the lives of up to 200,000 people worldwide.”  This comes after a test in 3 people. The novelty of the device is established. The story does not rely on a news release, and, in fact, this news release from the University of Tubingen contains more interesting information about the study than the story. Claim: Retinal implant trial helps blind people see shapes

A:
0
****
