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.
Q: 1605(a)(7) coupled with the Executive Branch's inherent constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs provide more than enough guidance to the Secretary of State to make a finding of fact upon which the operation of 1605(a)(7) partially depends. We hold that 1605(a)(7) does not include an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the Executive Branch. B. Sufficiency of the Pleadings Sudan argues that appellees failed to plead the jurisdictional causation requirement; specifically, it argues appellees failed to plead sufficient facts to "reasonably support a finding" that Sudan's mate rial support of al Qaeda in the early 1990s caused the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. See Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82, 94 (D.C.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Because "causation is indeed a jurisdictional
Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by 1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss (B) holding plaintiffs must provide particularized allegations as to why demand would be futile to survive a motion to dismiss conclusory allegations are not enough (C) recognizing inferential factual allegations to defeat a motion to dismiss (D) holding it appropriate to grant a motion to dismiss a discrimination claim where claim is not supported by factual allegations (E) holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant
A:
holding plaintiffs must provide particularized allegations as to why demand would be futile to survive a motion to dismiss conclusory allegations are not enough