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: "At least among Fox News viewers, nothing boosts audience like taking President Barack Obama to task. The day after Fox News host Bill O’Reilly had an interview with Obama, O’Reilly picked up an additional 1 million viewers for his show The O’Reilly Factor. The president sat down with O’Reilly right before the Super Bowl, and the tone of the conversation itself stirred up a flurry of reactions. Here’s a small example from a moment when O’Reilly pressed Obama on the administration’s response to the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. O’Reilly: If (Ambassador to the United Nations) Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration... Obama:  Bill... O’Reilly:  -- off a videotape but your... Obama:  Bill... O’Reilly:  -- your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack... Obama:  Now, Bill... O’Reilly:  Just... Obama:  -- Bill... O’Reilly:  -- as an American... Obama:  -- Bill -- Bill... O’Reilly:  -- I'm just confused. Obama:  And I'm -- and I'm trying to explain it to (you), if you want to listen. No wonder that many observers described the interview as testy. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank called it ""the roughest and nastiest exchange"" of the three times that O’Reilly has interviewed Obama. ""He interrupted the president 42 times in 10 minutes,"" Milbank said on MSNBC’s Politics Nation. Of all the words uttered in this 10-minute interview, 40 percent were uttered by O’Reilly."" We wanted to check Milbank’s numbers. Not on the interruptions, but on the word count. We pulled out our digital centrifuge and separated the O’Reilly and Obama utterances. According to our research, O’Reilly delivered 787 words to Obama’s 1,484. This gave O’Reilly 35 percent of the conversation. That’s a little lower than Milbank said but more or less in the same ballpark. We reached out to Milbank and did not hear back. To satisfy our own curiosity, we decided to compare this with another one-on-one interview between the president and a journalist. A couple of days before Obama sat down with O’Reilly, he did the same with CNN’s Jake Tapper. We subjected that transcript to the same rigorous methods and found that Tapper spoke 23 percent of the time, leaving the president the other 77 percent. The precise word counts were Tapper -- 849 and Obama -- 2,886. Milbank’s point was that O’Reilly’s interview was almost as much about O’Reilly as it was about the president. We don’t know about that, but we can say that O’Reilly spoke about 50 percent more than Tapper did in his interview. The topics in the two interviews differed greatly. O’Reilly brought up Obamacare, the Benghazi attack and the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Tapper focused on issues like immigration reform, legalization of marijuana, spying by the National Security Agency, and security at the Winter Olympics in Sochi. O’Reilly had a second installment of his time with Obama that aired the night after the Super Bowl. Milbank’s comment came on the same night, so we’re counting only the segment that had aired publicly at that point. For the record, in the second installment, O’Reilly asked the president about African-American children raised in single-parent households, school vouchers, the Keystone pipeline, a contraceptive coverage exemption for Little Sisters of the Poor, and veterans benefits. Our ruling Milbank said O’Reilly said 40 percent of the words during his interview with the president. That was a little high. By our count, 35 percent would be more accurate. O’Reilly spoke decidedly more than Tapper did in his time with Obama." Claim: Dana Milbank Says Bill O’Reilly spoke 40 percent of the words in an interview with President Barack Obama.
Example Output: 2

Example Input: Paragraph: "Republicans have been getting a lot of mileage out of the recent Supreme Court decision that brought a blow to the Affordable Care Act -- with the court citing a law enacted by Bill Clinton as part of its rationale. In Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, the court said the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows certain corporations to opt out of providing employees with certain contraception coverage -- which were mandated by the ACA -- because of the owners’ religious beliefs. Now, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is saying Bill and Hillary Clinton’s health care reform plan from the 1990s also would have supported the court’s decision. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s plan -- which he calls Hillarycare -- would have been more favorable to corporations wanting to evade certain parts of Obama’s health care law. ""Hillarycare, 20 years ago, had a broader provision. The bill that (former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.) introduced for Hillary had a broader provision in favor of corporate right to back out,"" of providing contraceptives based on religious beliefs, Gingrich said on Sunday’s ABC This Week. We showed Gingrich's statement to Sara Rosenbaum, a health policy professor at George Washington University, who played a role in drafting health care legislation for the Clinton administration. ""I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about,"" she said. So what is Gingrich talking about? The Clintons' proposed Health Security Act, proposed in 1993, would have required all employers to contribute to employees' health insurance. All benefits packages would have included coverage for ""family planning,"" including birth control. But the original proposal doesn't say anything about religious exemptions for employers. We weren't able to get a hold of Gingrich, but we think he's referring to this provision, included in a 1994 bill that Moynihan sponsored during the health care reform debate. (This bill was, however, separate from the Clintons’ plan.) Moynihan’s bill said, in part, ""Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any employer from contributing to the purchase of a standard benefits package which excludes coverage of abortion or other services, if the employer objects to such services on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction."" In plain English, the law would not require an employer to utilize a benefits package that provided benefits that went against their religious or moral beliefs. Gingrich is right that this would be less restrictive than the provisions laid out by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby decision, experts said. The court decision established fairly narrow restrictions for corporations looking to claim religious exemption from parts of the Affordable Care Act (though some say it creates a slippery slope). The decision said closely held corporations with strong religious convictions don’t have to offer insurance that covers four kinds of ACA-mandated contraceptives. Moynihan’s provision was less restrictive because it said employers don’t have to purchase plans that include ""abortion and other services,"" but it does not specify the other services, said Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor. Additionally, it includes ""moral conviction"" in addition to ""religious beliefs,"" Jost added. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act on which the court based its decision only applies to religious beliefs. But was creating an exemption for employers based on religious beliefs a primary tenant of the Clintons' health care plan? No, it wasn’t. The Clintons’ proposal Moynihan’s bill was not put forth on the Clintons’ behalf. Their plan did not include a religious exemption for employers clause, said Chris Jennings, former health care adviser to both Clinton and President Barack Obama, in an interview. ""That was not related to the plan,"" Jennings said. In fact, Moynihan was routinely critical of the Clintons’ proposal, once calling the administration’s financing estimates ""fantasy."" Moynihan's proposal was one of several health care reform bills coming out of the 103rd Congress, and it certainly was not the one the Clintons wanted. It saw little floor time because it came up in August 1994, when the health care reform debate was winding down. No other version of the Health Security Act included a religious exemption provision for employers -- including another earlier version also sponsored by Moynihan. The primary health care bill -- sponsored by former Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. and backed by the Clintons -- included a provision that allowed health care providers to refuse to offer or perform services that went against their moral or religious beliefs, such as abortions. But the exemption did not extend to the employers contributing to health insurance costs. The congressional briefing book on the Clintons' proposed plan does not include the provision, either. Additionally, we spoke with experts who said they do not recall birth control as a major source of debate during the Clintons’ health care reform efforts. News coverage at the time seems to back that up. Contraception coverage ""hadn't emerged as a goal of reformers at that point,"" said Paul Starr, a public affairs professor at Princeton University. ""So the idea of a ‘corporate right to back out’ also hadn't come up."" Abortion coverage was the primary point of contention, in terms of family planning, rather than birth control, Rosenbaum said. It’s possible that Moynihan added a religious exemption for employers in order to appease those who didn’t want comprehensive abortion coverage. But even so, it seems unlikely that the Clintons would have budged on providing universal abortion coverage. Around that time, Lorrie McHugh, a Clinton administration spokeswoman on health, told the New York Times that the administration stood by its original position that abortion should be covered ""where a doctor deemed it medically necessary or appropriate. … We’ll fight for it."" Our ruling Gingrich said Hillary Clinton's health care plan from the 1990s ""had a broader provision in favor of corporate right to back out"" of providing contraceptive coverage than the one created by the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. We found that Sen. Moynihan did produce a health care bill, as part of widespread reform efforts, that included a religious exemption for employers that was broader than the provisions created by the court’s decision. However, Gingrich was wrong to connect that back to the Clintons. The Clintons’ health care plans did not include such a provision, and they did not back Moynihan’s bill. In fact, Moynihan was critical of the administration throughout the health care debate. Additionally, his proposal came up near the end of the reform efforts and didn’t generate much discussion." Claim: "Newt Gingrich Says Hillary Clinton's health care plan from the 1990s ""had a broader provision in favor of corporate right to back out"" of providing contraceptive coverage than the one created by the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision."
Example Output: 0

Example Input: Paragraph: In a TV message on Monday evening watched by more than 27 million people, Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered people to stay at home, told nearly all shops to close and banned social gatherings including weddings and baptisms. However, public transport in London was busy during the morning rush hour and the streets were far from deserted amid confusion over the government’s advice to workers. The death toll from coronavirus in the United Kingdom has jumped by 87 to a total of 422 - the biggest daily increase since the crisis began. Meanwhile, the economic devastation was underscored by a survey that suggested the economy was shrinking at a record pace, faster than during the 2008-09 financial crisis. The unprecedented peacetime restrictions announced by Johnson, which will last at least three weeks, are intended to stop the state-run National Health Service (NHS), which suffers from staff shortages at the best of times, being overwhelmed. “These measures are not advice, they are rules and will be enforced, including by the police,” health minister Matt Hancock told parliament. At a news conference later, Hancock announced plans to open a temporary hospital next week at the Excel Centre, a huge venue in east London normally used for trade fairs and similar events. “With the help of the military and with NHS clinicians we will make sure that we have the capacity that we need so that everyone can get the support they need,” he said. British Transport Police said 500 officers will be deployed to train stations across the country to remind the public of the government’s advice to travel only when essential. Hancock called for 250,000 volunteers to help the NHS with tasks such as delivering medicines from pharmacies, driving patients to and from hospital appointments and phoning people isolating at home to check up on them. “If you are well and able to do so safely, I would urge you to sign up today to help the most vulnerable people in our communities as an NHS Volunteer Responder,” Hancock said. He also said the government had bought 3.5 million coronavirus antibody tests so that people who suspect they have had the virus would be able to find out for sure. Despite the message for people to stay at home, some roads were still busy and utility workmen and others were still mingling close together. Social media images showed the capital’s underground trains were packed with passengers closer than the 2-metre (6-foot) recommended distance apart and the government said “appropriate” construction work should continue. “The government needs to urgently provide clearer guidance on who should be working and who shouldn’t,” said Rebecca Long-Bailey, the opposition Labour Party’s business policy chief. “No one should be asked to work if they are not providing an essential function in this crisis.”  Under the curbs on movement, people should leave their homes only for very limited reasons such as going to supermarkets for vital supplies or for exercise once a day. Police, who will be able to issue fines of 30 pounds ($35), will now be able to break up gatherings of more than two people. A snap YouGov poll found that 93 percent of Britons supported the measures but were split on whether fines would be a sufficient deterrent. Supermarkets, where shelves have been stripped bare by  panic-buying in recent days, said they had begun limiting the number of shoppers in stores at any one time, erecting barriers outside, and installing screens at checkouts to protect staff. Last week, the government announced billions of pounds of help for businesses and said it would help to pay the wages of employees, giving grants to cover 80% of a worker’s salary if they were kept on as staff. But critics said it did not provide support for the self-employed, who total about 5 million in Britain compared to roughly 28 million employees, meaning they either had to keep working or risk losing all income. Finance minister Rishi Sunak told parliament the government was working on measures to help self-employed people, but said these had to be practical and fair. Claim: UK calls for 250,000 volunteers as virus deaths surge.
Example Output:
2

