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.

Input: Consider Input: likely causes of the engine failure are related to components of the oil delivery system, components of the cylinder assembly, cracked crankcase or an oil leak in general, etc.” As such, the Court finds that Mr. Klepacki’s opinion regarding the more likely causes of engine failure should be excluded. Plaintiffs Expert Donald Sommer Even assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Sommer is qualified to testify as an expert on piloting and accident reconstruction, including engine failure analysis, the Court must still find that the process he used in forming his expert opinion is suffi ciently reliable under Daubert and its progeny. See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (<HOLDING>). The Court must also find that the testimony 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial (B) holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility (C) holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable (D) holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge  (E) holding that rjulings on admissibility under daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered experts methodology

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: were driven by ‘[p]rice in an all-inclusive sense, which starts with the freight rate.’ ” (Doc. S-l at 56). No effort was made to differentiate or promote any aspect of Trailer Bridge’s products or services. Instead, the statement provided a brief explanation of the factors affecting price in the entire Puerto Rican cabotage market. Cf American Simmental Ass’n v. Coregis Ins. Co., 282 F.3d 582, 587 (8th Cir.2002) (“The plain and ordinary meaning of ‘advertising idea’ generally encompasses an idea for calling public attention to a product or business, especially by proclaiming desirable qualities so as to increase sales or patronage.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Proxima Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 132, 1994 WL 245671 at *1 (9th Cir.1994) (unpublished table decision) (<HOLDING>). Regardless of whether the statement lulled 
 Holding statements: (A) holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery (B) holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product (C) holding that the essential wrong of trademark infringement the appropriation of the good will of anothers established mark may be effectively accomplished by advertising matter associating that others distinguishing mark with the product of defendant (D) holding that the shape of a product was not an advertising idea because there was no allegation in the complaint that the design itself was a trademark or was intended to distinguish the product from others that might enter the market citation omitted (E) holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: may vary from, or are in addition to, those found in this Agreement. If your principal place of business is located in one of those states, this Agreement is amended to the fullest extent necessary to provide you those rights. Id. at 77. This provision resulted from DMI’s request to modify the initial draft of the agreement, which had provided North Carolina law would govern. DMI wanted the benefit of the South Dakota Dealer Protection Act (SDDPA), which it understood to permit termination of the agreement only if DMI justly provoked LeeBoy through misconduct. See S.D. Codified Laws § 87-5-3 (prohibiting a manufacturer or distributor from canceling a dealer’s franchise “unfairly ... and without just provocation”); Groseth Int’l, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 159, 168 (S.D.1987) (<HOLDING>). After entering the agreement, DMI took its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding wholesale dealer had antitrust standing in suit against manufacturer where dealer refused to comply with minimum resale price levels set by manufacturer and was terminated as a dealer (B) holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government (C) holding that an automobile dealers liability insurer was not liable for any damage allegedly caused by the negligence of the dealer and sustained in an accident involving an automobile purchased from the dealer or to defend the dealer in the negligence action where the injury occurred outside of the policy period and occurrence was defined in the policy as an accident including injurious exposure to conditions which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damages   (D) holding just provocation under  3753 requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer (E) holding that a finding of misconduct under section 44303626 requires intentional repeated instances of misconduct or violations of explicit policies after the employee has received warnings


Output: (D)