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.

[EX Q]: protected activity for purposes of the first element of a prima facie case and the second element is not disputed. "To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that 'the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct' and 'that the protected activity and the adverse employment action were not wholly unrelated.' " Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 590 (11th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). "[A]t a mini mum, [a plaintiff] must show that the adverse act followed the protected conduct." Griffin v. GTE Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.1999). In other words, the plaintiff must show a temporal link between a protected activity and an adverse employment action. See Sullivan v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 170 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Griffin, 182 F.3d at 1281-82 (finding no
Holding statements: (A) holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient (B) holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action (C) holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action (D) holding that no causal link existed between protected activity in february 1994 and adverse employment actions in late 1994 and early 1995 (E) holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
[EX A]: holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient

[EX Q]: as well as recent country reports and his own affidavit, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegation that conditions in China have materially changed. We have previously reviewed the BIA's consideration of similar evidence in the context of an untimely motion to reopen and have found no abuse of discretion in its conclusion that such evidence was insufficient to establish changed conditions in China. Id. at 275 (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as "the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] ... it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion"); Jian Huan Guan, v. BIA, 345 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In addition, we find that the BIA did not
Holding statements: (A) holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a petitioners untimely motion to reopen where she submitted proof of the birth of her two sons a letter from her parents warning of the danger of forced sterilization and a purported sterilization certificate for her cousin who also had two children (B) holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen (C) holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine (D) holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children (E) holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it
[EX A]: holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen

[EX Q]: transaction was entered into by Greenheart and the Browns for a commercial purpose. Because the Browns are the prevailing party on appeal, the Browns are entitled to attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(3). V. Conclusion The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The Browns are awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. Chief Justice BURDICK, Justices EISMANN, J. JONES and HORTON concur. 1 . The parties concede that the instant water rights case is not governed by Title 42, Chapter 14 addressed by the omitted portion of Idaho Code section 6-401. 2 . Extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of an agreement is also admissible where fraud or mutual mistake has been plead. Bilbao v. Krettinger, 91 Idaho 69, 72, 415 P.2d 712, 715 (1966)
Holding statements: (A) holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake (B) holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract (C) holding the parol evidence rule not pertinent to the present issue because a contract may be clear and unambiguous as far as it goes and yet may not express the true agreement of the parties by reason of mutual mistake (D) holding that mutual mistake is ground for reformation when as here the minds of the parties have met contractually but because of a mutual mistake the written contract between the parties is wanting in expression or execution to evince the actual and binding contractual intent of the parties (E) holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
[EX A]:
holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake