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: the rate must make a threshold showing that the rate at issue is unreasonable. Milne, 970 F.2d at 570; Covey, 763 F.Supp. at 482-83. Relevant factors in the determination include "relevant rate comparisons, a carrier's proffer of a particular rate, and whether the rate would have moved the traffic had it been asserted at the time the shipments took place." Matter of Brown Transport Truckload, Inc., 144 B.R. 183, 187 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1992). One common method of making a prima facie showing of unreasonableness is to provide affidavit testimony demonstrating a significant disparity between the rates sought to be charged by the carrier and the rates charged by competing carriers at the time in question. See, e.g., Vining v. The Eureka Co., 1992 WL 370520, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 8, 1992) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Brown, 144 B.R. at 187 (noting
Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo (B) holding eighty percent increase in demanded rates and showing that original rates were competitive with other carriers was prima facie unreasonable (C) holding prima facie showing of unreasonableness made by presenting evidence that tariff rates in effect at time of shipments were well above rates paid to other carriers for same service (D) holding that absence of competitive injury was not a defense to prima facie violation of 2e (E) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review

A: holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo
****
Q: See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.106; State ex rel. WW., No. 12-13-00045-CV, 2013 WL 3156312, at *6 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Because W.W. presented evidence to the trial court of his preference to avoid an increased dose ... based upon its side effects and ineffectiveness, it is presumed that the trial court gave his preferences due consideration."); In re T.O.R., No. 02-12-00376-CV, 2013 WL 362747, at *5 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("T.O.R. did not present any evidence to dispute So-biesk's testimony about the medications' benefits and the ineffectiveness of alternative treatments."); M.H. v. State ex rel. M.H., No. 01-09-00205-CV, 2009 WL 2050988, at *4-5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 16, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. A.R.F., No. 12-03-00294-CV,
Holding statements: (A) holding evidence of conspiracy sufficient and noting lack of evidence that any member of the group did anything but cooperate with the terms of the plan to commit robbery (B) holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned (C) holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the secretarys decision to deny benefits (D) holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding when patient did not present any evidence to dispute physicians testimony about benefits of treatment with psychoactive medications and lack of alternative treatments (E) holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract

A: holding evidence of conspiracy sufficient and noting lack of evidence that any member of the group did anything but cooperate with the terms of the plan to commit robbery
****
Q: Aug. 23, 2010). 3 The Superior Court Rules make the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 applicable for the purposes of discovery in all civil cases. See SUPER. Ct. R. 39. 4 We note that the Superior Court held the Molloys to the wrong standard, requiring them to prove personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence without holding an evidentiary hearing. Instead, as we stated above, the Superior Court should only have required the Molloys to make a prima facie showing supported by competent evidence. Additionally, the trial court, after reciting the undisputed facts presented by both parties' submissions, focused on what contacts the defendants lacked, instead of analyzing and considering what contacts BCBSAhad with the Virgin Islands. See Metcalfe, 566 F.3d at 332 (<HOLDING>). Notwithstanding these errors, because our
Holding statements: (A) holding that proper focus is reasonableness of inquiry not frivolousness (B) holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both (C) holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy (D) holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue (E) holding that the proper focus should be on whether the outofstate defendant engaged in any act that might provide the court with jurisdiction

A:
holding that proper focus is reasonableness of inquiry not frivolousness
****