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: The Nationals party, represents the poorest electorates in Australia.

Q1: What do they mean by "Poorest"?
A1: Two data sets measure the poverty line and disadvantage by federal electorate both

Q2: Which are the worst off electorates?
A2: The three worst off electorates on both of these measures, Fowler, Blaxland and Spence, are all represented by the Labor Party.

Q3: On average are the electorates represented by Nationals worse off?
A3: Yes, because Two data sets measuring the poverty line and disadvantage by federal electorate both show that electorates represented by the Nationals are on average worse off than those represented by the Labor and Liberal parties.

Q4: Does that mean that The Nationals party, represents the poorest electorates in Australia?
A4: No, because further analysis which estimates the worst off 5 per cent of electorates held by the Nationals, Labor and the Liberal Party shows the Nationals and Labor with similar results for poverty and disadvantage, making the picture less clear.

Minor parties such as the Greens were not included in this analysis as each minor party only represents a single electorate; a statistician told Fact Check that a comparison cannot be made using one data point against parties that hold many more electorates.
user
justification: Q&A 4 shows that whilst they do represent some of the poorest they average out about the same as other party's for disadvantaged electorate, so some cherry-picking of data

verdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'
assistant