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.

Example Input: State v. Gill, 47 N.J. 441, 444, 221 A.2d 521 (1966))); Twp. of Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156, 170, 733 A.2d 1159 (1999). Our construction of N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) is thus consonant with established principles of statutory construction. | IV. Applying statutes that are identical or very similar to the statute before the Court, courts of other states have reached varying conclusions. Several decisions have construed analogous statutes to describe two offenses, as this Court construes N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b). See People v. Butler, 81 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6, 146 Cal.Rptr. 856, 857 (Cal.Ct.App.1978) (construing Cal. Veh.Code § 21658 to state “two affirmative duties placed upon the operator of a motor vehicle”); People v. Smith, 172 Ill.2d 289, 216 Ill.Dec. 658, 665 N.E.2d 1215, 1218 (1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Marx, 289 Kan. 657, 215 P.3d 601, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders (B) holding that plain language of 625 ill comp stat ann 511709 establishes two separate requirements for lane usage (C) holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning (D) holding that in context of motion for reconsideration or to reopen congress envisioned two separate timely petitions for review of two separate final orders (E) holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms
Example Output: holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders

Example Input: court, in addition to other disbursements allowed by law, the following costs: . . . For travel, such sum as the court may allow”); Mass.RCiv.P. 54(d) (“Except when express provision therefore is made either in a statute of the Commonwealth or on these rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing pariy unless the court otherwise directs”). However, the Supreme Judicial Court cautioned that “(i]n taxing costs, courts do not seek to compensate litigants fully for the cost of litigation.” Waldman v. American Honda Motor Co., supra, 413 Mass, at 322. Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court has advised that “where such costs are permitted, an award of costs is allowable only when based on ‘specific affirmative authority.’ ” Demoulas v. Demoulas, 432 Mass. 43, 64 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 4.Travel Costs of Prevailing Party In 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys fees and court costs are recoverable under general hold harmless indemnity agreement (B) holding costs of service of subpoenas recoverable (C) holding that costs of daily transcripts during trial are not recoverable (D) holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered (E) holding that fees are not recoverable for work for which the client could not be charged
Example Output: holding that attorneys fees and court costs are recoverable under general hold harmless indemnity agreement

Example Input: that Zhang’s motion to reopen was both based on the country conditions evidence in the record, including the State Department’s 2008 Religious Freedom Report for China. See U.S. Department of State 2008 Religious Freedom Report for China; see also 2007 Annual Report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Although it did not discuss that evidence in detail, it was not required to do so. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006) (presuming that the agency has taken into account all evidence presented, unless the record “compellingly suggests otherwise”). This is particularly so because the evidence Zhang submitted was the same the agency is asked to consider “time and again.” See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions (B) holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen (C) holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider (D) holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it (E) holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected
Example Output:
holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions