Part 1. Definition
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'.
Part 2. Example
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
Answer: 1
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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: "The release of a video showing NFL running back Ray Rice striking his now-wife in an Atlantic City, N.J., casino elevator revived conversations about domestic violence on the Sunday shows. On the Sept. 14, 2014, edition of CNN’s State of the Union, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., shared an anecdote from her time as a prosecutor to illustrate the ills of domestic violence. ""We had a poster outside the door so everyone would see it when they came in. It was a picture of a woman beaten up with a Band-Aid over her nose, holding a little baby boy,"" Klobuchar said. ""And the words read, ‘Beat your wife, and it’s your son that goes to jail.’ "" ""Kids … that have seen it happen,"" Klobuchar said, are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" Klobuchar concluded that because the NFL puts ""out their players as role models,"" they have ""to set a different culture."" We were interested in checking Klobuchar’s claim that kids who witness domestic violence are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" 90's kids We want to be clear upfront that witnessing domestic violence means witnessing it in a child’s household -- not watching the TMZ.com Rice video. That said, the ""twice as likely"" talking point is fairly popular among advocates against domestic abuse, and suffice to say has been around for a while. The domestic violence literature we’ve seen often cited that claim with a 1990 book called ""Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families."" This book compiled the results of the landmark National Family Violence Surveys of 1975 and 1985, which constituted 60-minute face-to-face interviews and 30-minute phone interviews, respectively, with thousands of American families. Based on those interviews, the book’s authors illustrated how a variety of factors influenced the incidence of domestic violence. Most of the book is about gender differences and roles in domestic violence, but the section on the effects on children crunches the surveys’ numbers on whether abusers said they witnessed abuse as children. That produced the ""twice as likely"" estimate. The experts we talked to told us there hasn’t been any study as definitive or comprehensive since, although other studies have taken stabs at the issue of intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. ""We’ve known for such a long time that the biggest risk factor for being abusive against wives and children is witnessing domestic violence at home or being abused,"" said Jacquelyn Campbell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing who studies domestic violence. So ""people haven’t repeated the research for a while,"" Campbell said, and ""a lot of stuff is old and mostly cross-sectional."" What the existing literature says Campbell pointed us to a 2010 study about intimate partner violence -- a subset of domestic violence -- which found that children who witnessed any intimate partner violence were 2.6 times as likely to perpetrate it themselves. Children who witnessed any violence were 1.6 times as likely, according to the study, to become abusers as adults. Klobuchar’s claim, then, has grounds in literature both old and new. There are literally dozens of studies on this issue, though, and different studies tell different stories. A 2000 meta-analysis of 39 different studies on this issue found a ""small-to-medium"" correlation between witnessing and perpetrating. The studies in that survey, while a couple decades old, ranged from showing a causal relationship between witnessing and perpetrating to showing no relationship at all. That corroborates Klobuchar’s larger point that parents’ domestic violence has negative outcomes for their children, but that’s not the same as these kids being ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" Difficulties with measurements Putting numbers on domestic violence is particularly hard, and perhaps even inappropriate, said Ruth Glenn, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ""I wouldn’t say twice as likely,"" said Glenn. ""So I would say that it is an additional risk factor. I get nervous when we start to assign data, because there’s not enough data to support it. Domestic violence happens in families, and each of those families are individual units."" In other words, there’s enough out there to suggest that children who witness domestic violence are more likely to perpetrate it, but saying something as precise as ""twice as likely"" is difficult. Domestic violence is ""hard to measure for various and sundry reasons,"" said Glenn, from the lack of ""good data"" on who’s charged and convicted of domestic violence to confidentiality issues with its victims. And even when researchers can get affirmative data, there are methodological concerns. The studies about children who witness domestic violence often surveyed clinical populations -- meaning those with family issues, so a non-representative sample -- and ask respondents to self-report and to retroactively report. Extricating domestic violence from other family issues -- like mental health and substance abuse -- is also difficult, according to the studies Campbell referred us to. Our ruling Klobuchar, arguing that the NFL has a responsibility to hold its ""role models"" accountable to a ""different culture,"" said that kids who witness domestic violence in their households are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" There are legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that bear Klobuchar’s claim out. But overall, even though there’s a consensus that witnessing domestic violence puts kids at a greater risk for perpetrating it themselves, the precise figures differ. Measuring domestic violence is very difficult for a variety of reasons, and there hasn’t been a recent, comprehensive study. So saying these kids are ""twice as likely to commit"" domestic violence is a little too precise." Claim: "Children who witness domestic violence are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."
Answer:
2