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'.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 1
Rationale: 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: Aerus air quality technicians who inspected the Jefferson County Election Commission office last month found evidence of water damage and mold buildup, and an oppressive musty odor permeated the air. “They found mold in the carpet,” Commissioner Stuart Soffer said. “In the heating and air room, the readings were unbelievable and there was a pickle bucket in there with water and mold that has been growing because apparently one of the units back there was leaking, and the two air filters were black with mold.” Soffer noted that mold was growing inside the cabinets in the media room, where commissioners work to prepare elections and to tabulate election results. He added that the moisture contamination was coming from a building next door that was leaking into the election commission office. “The bottom line is that we cannot continue using this building,” he said. “We have a liability and if you knowingly expose people to this stuff, you’re setting yourself up.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mold can prompt a variety of health problems including eye, nose and throat irritation, but can also lead to lung disease and upper respiratory tract illness for those with asthma or a compromised immune system. Aerus’ measurements showed that one election room contained 73,300 particles per cubic foot small mold spores, which technicians said far exceeded acceptable levels of 2,500 particles per cubic foot. They also found large mold spores measuring 16,800 particles per cubic foot, while the acceptable level is 200 particles per cubic foot. The Arkansas Gazette-Democrat reported that the damp and mold could lead to corrosion of electronic voting machines. The technicians said mold spore levels far exceeded acceptable levels. Aerus, which sells air and water purifiers, recommended a $1,500 dehumidifier. Soffer suggested that the election commission could move into the former sheriff’s office facility in the county courthouse. But County Judge Gerald Robinson, the chief executive of county government, said that room wasn’t available to the election commission. Robinson said he would look for another county-owned building to use. ___ Information from: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, http://www.arkansasonline.com Claim: Arkansas election office may move due to high mold levels.
A:
2