In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: of death which does not meet these requirements is voidable by the donor (if he recovers) or his personal representative. Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 127,146, 36 P. 783 (1894). In other words, a gift in contemplation of death'is presumptively voidable by the personal representative of the deceased, and the presumption may be rebutted by the donee with clear and convincing evidence of the six elements listed above. Although Goldsworthy and Hulley are the only Nevada cases ever to have examined the gift causa mortis doctrine, and they have never been overruled, at least one Nevada case has suggested (in a different context) that the burden of proof may not be on the donee. North Arlington Medical Building, Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Company, 86 Nev. 515, 521, 471 P.2d 240, 244 (Nev.1970) (<HOLDING>). North Arlington is not really on point, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable (B) holding that inter vivos gift to minor is presumptively effective under nrs 167040 (C) holding that the purpose of nrs 1760551 is to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendants ultimate sentence (D) holding that belowguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable (E) holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable
[A]: (B)


[Q]: was satisfied that protocols were followed after examining their case notes and the data collected. Further, Quartaro testified to the various safeguards Cellmark employed to protect against the risk of errors and to detect any such errors, if made. Accordingly, Quartaro could have been meaningfully cross-examined on the general and specific risks of error in forensic testing, whether the result of carelessness, incompetence, or fraud. See Boyd, 686 F.Supp.2d at 385 (finding no constitutional violation when only the DNA analyst who wrote the report, and not the intervening-testing analysts, testified because “the testifying expert was himself familiar with the[ ] intervening procedures and could be fully cross-examined as to their efficacy, accuracy, etc.”); Munoz, 958 N.E.2d at 1174 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Quartaro certainly could have been 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible (B) holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness (C) holding that an expert who offers an independent opinion based on another analysts report can be meaningfully crossexamined on the general risk of error in forensic testing (D) recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue (E) holding that an administrative agencys decision may not be based upon inadmissible expert opinion
[A]: (C)


[Q]: Plaintiff and none of whom were terminated. (PI. Facts ¶¶ 108-109; PI. Ex. A, Enclosure # 2). But a reasonable factfinder could not conclude based on these facts alone that Fisher acted with invidious purpose. There is no showing that the younger store managers had received the same degree of negative reviews as had Plaintiff — i.e., that they were “similarly situated” — nor that Januus had been qualified for his job. There are no facts whatsoever about the abilities or performance of these store managers; Plaintiffs table merely provides the ages of the other store managers under Fisher’s control and whether or not they were terminated. This sort of raw data does not support a finding invidious intent. See Ezold v. Wolf, Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 542-43 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs description of the discriminatory 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision (B) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (C) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (D) holding raw numerical comparisons between the number of male and female partners when not accompanied by any analysis of either the qualified applicant pool or the flow of qualified candidates over a relevant period of time was not relevant to a showing of pretext (E) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
[A]:
(D)