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.

Example Input: small pieces of the Walkway, or access to the Walkway, built upon it. See Def.-Int. Reply at p. 14 (noting that the second of two issues remaining for the Court to decide, given that the public trust doctrine gov erns a large portion of the land at issue, is "whether the state acted rationally in determining that access across the perpendicular paths and scattered small portions of the Walkway constructed on uplands is 'reasonably necessary' to protect that public's right of access to the remaining 88.7 percent of the Walkway that is situated on tidelands"). Plaintiffs' taking claims with respect to this small portion of the property at issue are governed by the reasonableness test enunciated in Matthews. See Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 326, 471 A.2d 355 (1984) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 93, 83
Holding statements: (A) holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege (B) holding that in order to exercise its rights under the public trust doctrine the public must be given both access to and use of privatelyowned dry sand areas as reasonably necessary (C) holding that the borough of deals dedication of a portion of a beach for use by its residents only was immaterial given the public trust doctrines requirement that the public be afforded the right to enjoy all dry sand beaches owned by a municipality (D) holding that under the public standing doctrine it is only necessary that the relator shall be a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws (E) recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public
Example Output: holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege

Example Input: 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
Example Output: holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review

Example Input: Am. Express Co. v. United States, 262 F.3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The appellant asserts that the Court should find that the Secretary's interpretation of section 1117 that veterans who served in Afghanistan are not eligible for the service-connection presumptions afforded in it is arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not consider all relevant factors, including the purposes for which section 1117 was originally promulgated and the fact that VA and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have both recognized that veterans who served in Afghanistan face "many if not all" of the same exposures faced by veterans who served in the other countries included in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. App. Br. at 13-17 (citing Marlow v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 146, 151 (1993) (<HOLDING>)(quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State
Holding statements: (A) holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable (B) holding that a court reviewing an informal adjudication must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment (C) holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment (D) holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable (E) holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious
Example Output:
holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable