Teacher: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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: F.2d at 453 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). This Court held similarly in Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train, That no plant in a given industry has adopted a pollution control device which could be installed does not mean that that device is not "available." Congress did not intend to permit continuance of pollution by industries which have failed to cope with and attempt to solve the problem of polluted water. 537 F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir.1976); see also Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 286 (2d Cir.1977) (technology used " 'in other industries with similar raw waste characteristics' " was "available" (quoting Liquid and Crystalline Cane Sugar Refining Subcategory, 39 Fed.Reg. 10,522, 10,522 (1974))); Am. Petrol. Inst. v. EPA, 858 F.2d 261, 264-65 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). For a technology in one industry to be
Holding statements: (A) recognizing mackey is not consistent with our decision in wood v national basketball assn (B) holding that a determination of residual functional capacity must include a discussion of why reported daily activity restrictions are or are not reasonably consistent with the medical evidence quoting avery 797 f2d at 29 (C) holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent (D) holding that a process can be deemed available even if it is not in use at all because such an outcome is consistent with congress intent to push pollution control technology quoting assn of pac fisheries v epa 615 f2d 794 816 9th cir1980 weyerhaeuser co v costle 590 f2d 1011 1061 dccir1978 (E) holding that it is not
Student:
(D)