Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: There is a phone scam in which "these guys only ring once and hang up," and if you call back, they can copy your contact list in three seconds as well as your bank or credit details.

Q1: Is There a phone scam in which guys only ring once and hang up, and if you call back, they can copy your contact list in three seconds as well as your bank or credit details?
A1: This is not true.

Q2: Where did this claim originate from?
A2: A Facebook post

Q3: What did Facebook label this post as?
A3: False Information. Checked by independent fact-checkers.

Q4: Is the stated claim credible?
A4: No, because This post includes inaccurate information about different types of scams. The top portion references the one-ring call scam, which you can find more about here. The purpose of the scam is to get consumers to unknowingly call back international phone numbers and incur charges from international rates or other connection fees.

This section "they can copy your contact list in 3sec and if you have a bank or credit details on your phone, they can copy that too" is false and does not apply to this type of scam.

Q5: What is an example of a real phone call scam?
A5: Every time you call, you will be charged high international rates or other connection fees. The bad guy gets all or part of those fees.

A new example of how the bad guys try to keep you on the phone is by telling you: “You’ve received a song from someone who loves you. After listening to this song you will find out who sent this song as a gift.” The longer you stay on the call, the more you pay. And the more the bad guy makes.

These scams are also known as “Wangiri,” which comes from Japan where the scam originated years ago and means one-ring-and-cut. (One ring and done.)
user
justification: Refuted by alternate factchecking and QA pair provided state its a mixture of scams being presented as one scam.

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant