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: There was no mentioned of costs – and that’s a big issue. The costs of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors ($3/pill) and PD5-inhibitors (> $10/pill) are rather high compared to alpha blocker such as terazosin and doxazosin ($0.5 to 1.5). Avodart and Tamsulosin are not more effective than finasteride (now a generic) and terazosin/doxazosin, just newer and more expensive. While discussing the symptoms associated with benign prostate hyperplasia, it provide little quantitative information either about how common the various types of symptoms are or the extent to which the various medications and medication combinations relieved these symptoms. The story also did not provide data on the proportion of men who benefit, the magnitude of treatment benefit for symptom relief, quality of life, or preventing complications from BPH progression. The only other evidence was that Botox reduces prostate volume by 15%–a finding of uncertain clinical significance. The story did not explicitly note the most clinically important benefits of preventing BPH progression–reducing the risks for surgery, renal insufficiency, and urinary retention. The story did not mention any harms that might be associated with the use of 8 of the 9 medications discussed (though the description of the tolterodine study does note the potential for urinary retention); nor any possible harms associated with combined use of the various medications mentioned. The story mentioned a number of studies and extrapolated results from studies with one drug to others using a different drug, albeit of the same class. It is incorrect to assume that all drugs within a class will have the same magnitude of benefit, or even the same harms associated with their use. This story engaged in disease mongering. It leads with the concern that with increasing age, men experience a steady enlargement of the prostate gland. While this may be the case, it is not always a condition that mandates intervention. The story then goes on to explain about the symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia explaining that there are bothersome symptoms and serious symptoms. Yet the reader is not given any information that would enable them to gauge how often the more serious symptoms arise. The story referred to the results of several previously published stories. It included a comment from one of the authors of a high quality study published in a peer reviewed  It also made reference to the results to be presented at an upcoming meeting that are from a drug company funded trial. It included a comment from one of the authors of that yet to be presented study. The story mentioned that surgery used to be the gold standard of care for benign prostate hyperplasia but that it is now commonplace for medications to be used to treat symptoms and prevent progression of benign prostate hyperplasia. The story did not mention that it is not always necessary for benign prostate hyperplasia to be actively treated. This is a significant oversight. The story mentioned 9 different medications, included the scientific name for most but not all along with a trade name. However, although there are direct to consumer advertisements for many of the medications mentioned, the story did not explicitly state whether these medications were approved and whether they were prescription or over-the-counter preparations. The story was informative about noninvasive approaches for treatment of the symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia. However, most of the story focused on drugs that have been in use for years and cited studies 2 – 5 years old. Does not appear to rely on a press release. Claim: Advances in treatments for enlarged prostates
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: "Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on July 2 on charges she lured girls to be sexually abused by financier Jeffrey Epstein. According to official autopsy results, Epstein killed himself last year in a New York jail cell where he was being held on federal sex trafficking charges, though conspiracy theories allege he was murdered because he had damaging information about powerful people. An image of what looks like a BBC article that’s being shared on Facebook suggests that Maxwell will meet a similar end. ""Ghislaine Maxwell moved to intensive care as coronavirus symptoms worsen,"" the headline says above an image of Maxwell. The article appears under the BBC’s ""England"" tab. But the dateline is in the future: July 11, 2020. ""Death by executing oh I mean COVID-19 (MY BAD),"" one account commented on the Facebook post. ""The sheep will believe the virus cover up."" The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This headline does not appear on the BBC’s website. Searching for it more broadly online, we found only a fact-check ruling that the image is a forgery. The wording of the headline is similar to the one on an April 7 BBC story about Britain’s prime minister: ""Coronavirus: Boris Johnson moved to intensive care as symptoms worsen."" Johnson, who was sickened by COVID-19, has since recovered. A story about Maxwell wouldn’t appear in the BBC’s England section because, though she is a British socialite, she was arrested in Bradford, N.H., and indicted in the United States. The acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York announced the charges against Maxwell. When the BBC reported on the charges, the story appeared in its ""US & Canada"" section. On July 3, a self-described satire site posted a story claiming Maxwell had tested positive for COVID-19 in a New Hampshire jail. We found no credible reports that Maxwell has tested positive for the disease." Claim: Viral image Says BBC prematurely reported “Ghislaine Maxwell moved to intensive care as coronavirus symptoms worsen.”
[A]: 0


[Q]: Paragraph: The radiologists used angiography, an X-ray of the blood  vessels, to confirm loss of blood flow in the severely  frostbitten hands and feet of 17 patients. They threaded catheters into the arteries to directly  deliver clot-busting drugs to dissolve the blood clots and  anti-spasmodics to relax the arteries. This helped 90 percent of the patients, they told a meeting  in Washington of the Society of Interventional Radiology. “Previously, severe frostbite was a one-way route to limb  loss. This treatment is a significant improvement.” said Dr.  George Edmonson, an interventional radiologist with St. Paul  Radiology in St. Paul, Minnesota, who worked on the study. “We’re opening arteries that are blocked so that tissues  can heal and limbs can be salvaged. We were able to reopen even  the smallest arteries, saving patients’ fingers and toes,”  Edmonson added. Severe frostbite can block blood flow and cause small clots  to form. These clots can worsen already slowed blood flow. “For half our patients who received the clot-busting drug  Tenectaplase, this technique worked beautifully, saving all  fingers, hands, toes and feet that otherwise would have been  lost,” said Edmonson. “Overall, in about 80 percent of the cases, it  significantly improved patients’ outcomes. Within one to three  days of treatment, we saw improvement.” Claim: Clot-busting drugs save limbs from frostbite.
[A]:
2


