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 Input:
up to $2,000, which would have set aside, in a literal sense, a discrete “amount . . . necessarily consumed for the support of’ the taxpayer and his or her family. Opinion of the Justices, 82 N.H. at 572. This description, made in reference to an income tax exemption, is not applicable to the question of whether an income tax assessed on gross rather than net income is unfair, unreasonable, or disproportionate. Certainly nothing in that opinion suggested that such an exemption was necessary in order to render that tax constitutional. Where we have found that a tax was unfair, unreasonable, or disproportionate, the constitutional deficiency has been of a much different character than the one the petitioners allege here. See Claremont School Dist. v. Governor, 142 N.H. 462, 470-71 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Opinion of the Justices, 132 N.H. 777, 783-84 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety (B) holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts (C) holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue (D) holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others (E) holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge

Ex Output:
holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety


Ex Input:
for these terms in the specifications or prosecution histories of the ’403-S or ’838 patents. Furthermore, the fact that the inventors removed the term “comprising” from Claim 1 of the ’403-S patent does not change the plain meaning of the term “composition,” which remains in the final version of the claim. Moreover, if the court were to adopt the construction of the ’403-S claims put forth by Glaxo, Claim 1 would contradict Claim 1 of the ’838 patent, which retains the term “comprising” and claims the process for producing the compositions described in ’403-S patent. Such a construction would be inconsistent. In light of these findings, the court concludes that the terms “comprising” and “composition” must be construed according to their plain meanings. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (<HOLDING>). As a result, the phrases “immunoglobulin 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that words in claims are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning unless the patentee clearly sets forth a different in the specification or file history (B) holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning (C) holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning (D) recognizing we must give insurance policy language its ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the policy shows that the words used are intended to impart a technical or different meaning (E) holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning

Ex Output:
holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning


Ex Input:
and feed herself. (Id.). Since leaving her position with Defendant, she has performed in jobs requiring her to move files and has assisted in moving a corporate division to another location. (Id. at 25, 28-29). The Eleventh Circuit has not squarely addressed whether an individual with a lifting restriction is disabled. See Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055, 1061 (11th Cir.2000). Most recently, the Court has stated that it “doubt[s] that a lifting limitation states a per se ADA disability.” Carr v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 170 Fed.Appx. 57, 60 n. 3 (11 th Cir.2006). A number of the Circuit courts have held that lifting restrictions on the same scale as Plaintiffs restriction do not constitute an ADA disability. See Thompson v. Holy Family Hosp., 121 F.3d 537, 539-40 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that restriction limiting continuous lifting of containers weighing fortyfour to fiftysix pounds does not substantially limit any major life activity (B) holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity (C) holding as a matter of law that a permanent twentyfive pound lifting restriction does not constitute a significant restriction on ones ability to lift work or perform any other major life activity (D) holding that a twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities (E) holding that a permanent lifting restriction of no more than twentyfive pounds on a continuous basis is not substantially limiting

Ex Output:

holding that restriction limiting continuous lifting of containers weighing fortyfour to fiftysix pounds does not substantially limit any major life activity