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.

[EX Q]: before his heart attack and had been "asymptomatic" up until the day after his training. Dr. Sander viewed Bill's physical activity during fire training as significantly higher than his usual physical activity during work. He testified there was a continuity of symptoms from the time that Bill left the fire training school until he had his heart attack and that he did not see any significance in the period of time from when he left the training to when he had his heart attack. Essentially, New Hampshire Insurance is asking us to presume that its expert's theory is reliable in order to determine that Peggy Allison's expert's theory is unreliable. Conflicting theories between experts, however, do not automatically render one unreliable. See Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 695 (Tex.2012) (<HOLDING>). The trial court could rely on Dr. Sander's
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the conflict (B) holding conflict between experts theories is matter to be resolved by jury (C) recognizing conflict between circuits (D) recognizing possible conflict between the cases (E) recognizing conflict
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: But he claims that release at age 60 is a geriatric release and the functional equivalent of life without parole in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also argues that such release violates the principles in Graham, Miller, and Montgomery because release at age 60 provides only grim prospects for any meaningful future outside prison. [12.] Even if Charles's 92-year sentence is equivalent to a sentence of life without parole, that alone does not mean his sentence is unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment precedent. The United States Supreme Court bars mandatory life sentences without parole against juvenile homicide offenders, not discretionary sentences of life without parole. See Miller, 567 U.S. at -, 132 S.Ct. at 2469; State v. Springer, 2014 S.D. 80, 15, 856 N.W.2d 460, 466 (<HOLDING>). [13.] In response, Charles asks this Court
Holding statements: (A) holding sentences of life without parole unique in their severity (B) holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence (C) recognizing that njeither graham nor miller explicitly apply to the functional equivalent of life without parole ie de facto life sentences (D) holding that consecutive fixedterm sentences for juveniles who committed multiple nonhomicide offenses are not clearly unconstitutional under graham even when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole (E) holding that williams fiftyyear sentence is not a de facto life sentence in violation of graham
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: (Fla.1998), the supreme court held that section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes, which enhances the punishment for committing assault, aggravated assault, battery and aggravated battery committed against law enforcement and other specified public officers, does not create new substantive offenses and, by its plain language, does not apply to "attempts" to commit the enumerated crimes. The court explained: The enhancement statute contains no enhancement or reclassification of penalties for the offense of attempted commission of the enumerated offenses; therefore, attempted assault and attempted battery as well as attempted aggravated assault and battery of a law enforcement officer are nonexistent offenses. Id. at 385. The State argues that the supreme court has since determined that 05)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, J.S.'s adjudication of
Holding statements: (A) holding where school principal was struck while trying to stop student fight transferred intent operates to transfer students intent to commit simple battery on classmate thus negating conviction for attempted battery on school official which requires heightened level of intent (B) holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two (C) holding sentence enhancement statute did not create offense of attempted battery on school employee and thus minors adjudication of delinquency should have been based on finding that minor committed attempted battery (D) holding that battery is clearly a factual determination readily resolved by the application of a legal standard defining battery to the facts in question (E) holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery
[EX A]:
(C)