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.

and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law 3.8 at 342-44 (1986)). We noted with approval the seven factors LaFave and Scott have suggested be balanced in deciding this question. One of these factors, the severity of the punishment, suggests that the legislature might have intended to require proof of mental state for the enhancement of dealing in cocaine. .Other factors, particularly the great danger of the prohibited conduct and the great number of expected prosecutions, suggest that the General Assembly likely did intend to create a strict Hability enhancement. Our assessment of these factors makes it difficult to conclude that the General Assembly intended to require separate proof the defendant knew that the dealing occurred near a school but failed 623 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). 2 . These factors are: 1) the legislative
Holding statements: (A) holding obscenity statute required proof of scienter (B) holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required (C) holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under 1991a1 but not under 1991a2 or 1991a3 (D) holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter (E) holding that the incredible dubiosity rule was inapplicable and affirming the defendants conviction for child molesting
holding obscenity statute required proof of scienter