TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: it was minor and that Zhang only had five years of education. The IJ reasonably found these explanations insufficient. Zhang also testified inconsistently regarding whether he was fired from his job after authorities arrested him in 2010, or simply did not return to work. Zhang argues that this inconsistency was "nonexistent" because there was more than one reason why he did not return to work. Zhang does not explain, however, why he did not state that he was terminated when he was first asked why he did not- return to work. The agency reasonably found that Zhang's failure to mention his termination until prompted by the IJ undermined his credibility, and that his explanation that he "did not listen clearly" was unpersuasive. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the agency reasonably found that
Holding statements: (A) holding that the court need not accept as true unwarranted factual inferences (B) holding that district court need not accept the governments recommendation of a minor role reduction (C) holding that a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a plausible entitlement to relief (D) holding that a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that the petitioner would more likely than not be subjected to torture if removed to china based solely on the fact that she had illegally departed china without more particularized evidence (E) holding that ij need not accept plausible explanation for inconsistency unless reasonable factfinder would be compelled to do so

SOLUTION: holding that the court need not accept as true unwarranted factual inferences

PROBLEM: to allege damages through June 30, 2006 is the focus of their motion."). Because the Government does not oppose Plaintiff supplementing the September 4, 2009 Complaint to seek damages through the end of 2009, the issue before the court is whether Plaintiff may supplement to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009, or through December 31, 2010. See System Fuels, 73 Fed.Cl. at 211 ("Supplementation may be limited or curtailed to avoid prejudice." (citation omitted)). Although Plaintiff may have given the Government an estimate of 2010 damages as early as July 2010, Plaintiff did not identify the specific 2010 damages claimed or provide the Government with supporting documentation of those damages until April 20, 2011 t 4 Fed.Cl. 727 (2006) ("SMUD III") (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 293 Fed.Appx.
Holding statements: (A) holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding (B) holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages (C) holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater (D) holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them (E) holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003

SOLUTION: holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding

PROBLEM: the piling of wires next to the staircases "arguably did not create an unreasonable risk of harm." The trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment as to the elements of duty and breach. 12. We disagree. Given plaintiff's deposition testimony that she did not see the wire in the stairs before she tripped, and defendant's admissions that the area was poorly lit, covered in debris, and unsecured, a reasonable jury could conclude that either the danger was not open and obvious or that defendant should have foreseen the harm even if the danger was obvious. Thus, a jury could find that defendant had a duty to make the condition safe or warn plaintiff of the danger, and that he breached this duty. Cf. Menard, 174 Vt. at 479-80, 806 A.2d at 1005-07 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff also testified as to the elements
Holding statements: (A) holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support an inference of constructive notice where plaintiff who slipped on an unknown substance could not say that the substance was placed there by employees of defendant that its presence was known to them or that it was there for an appreciable time before accident (B) holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law (C) holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger (D) holding defendants not liable for negligence under either an invitee or licensee standard where danger of spiral staircase was obvious to plaintiff defendants had installed a guardrail area was welllit and there was no foreign substance on the stairs (E) holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger

SOLUTION:
holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support an inference of constructive notice where plaintiff who slipped on an unknown substance could not say that the substance was placed there by employees of defendant that its presence was known to them or that it was there for an appreciable time before accident