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]: waived those rights. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statements. Defendant argues that the trial court made numerous errors in its order. Generally, an appellate court’s review of a trial court’s order on a motion'to suppress is limited to a determination of whether its findings are supported by competent evidence and, in turn, whether the findings support the trial court’s ultimate conclusions of law. E.g., State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). However, here, as noted above, the State argues that defendant failed to preserve the issue because he did not object at trial. Defendant coun ters that no objection was necessary, distinguishing our recent opinion in State v. Oglesby, 361 N.C. 550, 554, 648 S.E.2d 819, 821 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s contention is that the judge who 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review (B) holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal (C) holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial (D) holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal (E) holding that a trial courts evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue    for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial
[EX A]: holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review

[EX Q]: 718. Under Texas law, a person may engage in the practice of engineering, architecture, or landscape architecture if he is licensed in those professions. See Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 3271a, § 1.2 (Vernon Supp.1999) (engineering); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art.249a, § 1 (Vernon Supp.1999) (architecture); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 249c, § 5(a) (Vernon Supp.1999) (landscape architecture). The State complains Henry was allowed to testified as to matters requiring expertise in surveying, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture even though he is not licensed in any of those professions. Therefore, because Henry is not licensed, he was not qualified to testify as an expert. See Prellwitz v. Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker & Woodsmale, 802 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, no writ) (<HOLDING>); but see Southland Lloyd’s Ins. Co. v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury (B) holding that a witness who will be giving opinion evidence about a propertys fair market value must be disclosed and designated as an expert pursuant to discovery and other applicable rules (C) recognizing that a licensed chiropractor is a health care provider competent to testify as a medical expert (D) holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts (E) holding that witness giving expert opinion regarding stan dard of care for particular licensed profession must hold license for same profession
[EX A]: holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury

[EX Q]: retaliation for his sexual harassment complaints. In addition, the Plaintiff points out that there are no written memoranda or letters in his file documenting any issues with his attendance, either in the summer of 2008 or during any other time period. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that Robert Cacciola, another warehouse employee, was never monitored by Ellis or disciplined by Geier, although he had similar attendance issues. Courts have consistently held that one way to establish a claim of retaliation is to show that the complaining employee is treated differently than other employees who did not engage in a protected activity. See Knight v. City of New York, 303 F.Supp.2d 485, 498-99 (S.D.N.Y.2004); see also DeCintio v. Westchester Cty. Med. Ctr., 821 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court finds that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that absent a rational reason for disparate treatment similarlysituated taxpayers should be treated in a similar fashion (B) holding that discrimination can be established through other evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct (C) holding that the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employers treatment of them for it (D) holding that title vii does not provide for a damages claim against supervisors or fellow employees (E) holding that a causal connection may be established indirectly with circumstantial evidence for example by showing that the protected activity was followed by discriminatory treatment or through evidence of disparate treatment of employees who engaged in similar conduct or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus
[EX A]:
holding that absent a rational reason for disparate treatment similarlysituated taxpayers should be treated in a similar fashion