You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

The Second Circuit has observed that "[a]n explanation for a particular challenge need not necessarily be pigeon-holed as wholly acceptable or wholly unacceptable." Alvarado II, 923 F.2d at 256. Where the acceptability of the explanation is doubtful, the Batson inquiry is not at an end. United States v. Alvarado, 951 F.2d 22, 26 (2d Cir. 1991) ("Alvarado III "). In deciding the ultimate issue of discriminatory intent, the judicial officer is entitled to assess each explanation in light of all the other evidence relevant to prosecutorial intent. The officer may think a dubious explanation undermines the bona fides of other explanations or may think that the sound explanations dispel the doubt raised by a questionable one. Id. See also, Howard v. Senkowski 986 F.2d 24, 30 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Alvarado II, 923 F.2d at 256. As discussed
Holding statements: (A) holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis (B) holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis (C) holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis (D) holding that batson challenges are subject to dualmotivation analysis (E) holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional
Output:
holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis