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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[EX Q]: purpose, we would have some authority to solve taxpayer’s problem. See Rhodes, 166 Vt. at 157, 688 A.2d at 1311 (noting that, to invoke impossibility rule, party “must dem onstrate why this Court should not construe the statute in its ordinary sense or why the consequences of such construction will cause hardship or constitute impossibility”). But our standard under this prudential rule is very limited and does not ordinarily extend to making choices, among many available, to solve the problem. There is simply no way to construe the statute to allow a transfer that occurred 319 days after an LLC’s articles of organization were filed without reading the words “at the time of formation” out of the statute. See Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 15, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727 (<HOLDING>). ¶23. It is true that the Department’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case (B) recognizing that though statute at hand does not fully address the problem legislature intended to address in view of the number of choices available to solve the problem    this is an inappropriate case for the court to fashion the particular remedy appellants seek because to do so would place court in the position of making policy choices best left to legislature (C) holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature (D) holding that considering an amendment is not the time to address the merits of a case (E) holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language
[EX A]: holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case

[EX Q]: under Section 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution. The majority’s greatest foible, however, is in its treatment of the primary issue before this Court, whether the enactment of Senate Bill 1, by which the Legislature removed the PSC Commissioners, constituted an encroachment by the Legislature on the gubernatorial powers enumerated in Sections 1, 9 and 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution, and a violation of Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights’ separation of powers. Aristotle’s principles, explored by John Locke, and later pragmatically structured by Baron de Montesquieu, are generally credited as the mainstay of the separation of powers doctrine. Edward Rubin, The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse, 103 Mich. L.Rev.2073, 2093 n. 59 (2005) (<HOLDING>)-, Jim Rossi, Dual Constitutions and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government (B) recognizing that the american governments three distinct branches originate from a fusion of concepts found in aristotles the politics john lockes the second treatise of government and montesquieus the spirit of laws (C) recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law (D) recognizing that when other branches of government are remiss in their constitutional duties the judiciary must act (E) recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government
[EX A]: holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government

[EX Q]: to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment, and in ruling on such a motion, the trial court is confined to a consideration of the allegations found within the four.corners of the complaint.”). We begin our analysis1 by noting that the Personal Representatives are duly appointed legal representatives of the Estate, with the capacity to bring an action on the Estate’s behalf and charged with the obligation to take possession of Norman’s property for purposes of administration. See §§ 733.602; 733.607(1), Fla. Stat. (2011); Tennyson v. ASCAP, 477 F. App’x 608 (11th Cir.2012); Sullivan v. Sessions, 80 So.2d 706 (Fla.1955); Brake v. Murphy, 687 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); cf. Disque v. Unger, 955 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). To that end, the Personal Representatives 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where all substantive claims are properly dismissed there is no basis for injunctive relief (B) holding that a pro se complaint  should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief (C) holding that where no colorable claim can be construed from a complaint it should be dismissed (D) recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice  (E) holding that trial court properly dismissed estates complaint for declaratory relief where outcome would be of no financial benefit to estate
[EX A]:
holding that where all substantive claims are properly dismissed there is no basis for injunctive relief