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 Input:
or inferences ... based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." Fed.R.Evid. 701(c). In other words, lay testimony must "result[] from a process of reasoning familiar in everyday life" and not "from a process of reasoning which can be mastered only by specialists in the field." Fed.R.Evid. 701 advisory committee's note (internal quotation marks omitted). "Testimony based solely on a person's special training or experience is properly classified as expert testimony, and therefore it is not admissible under Rule 701." Compania Administradora v. Titan Intern'l, Inc., 533 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir.2008). This includes testimony about an opinion reached during a parole officer's investigation. See U.S. v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 216 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Cue's testimony here does not "result[] from
Holding statements: (A) holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine (B) holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue (C) holding that a law enforcement agent may not testify about an opinion reached during his investigation if the agents reasoning process depended in whole or in part on his specialized training and experience (D) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert witness in the area of gang identity and investigation based on his training and experience (E) holding an agent from the drug enforcement agency could testify regarding the street value of cocaine where the agent was testifying regarding matters within his personal knowledge and experience as a narcotics officer

Ex Output:
holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine

Ex Input:
created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference ... by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts'were occurring. Id. at 127 (citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995)). The Supreme Court's decision in Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, which found that a supervisor can be held liable only "through the official's own individual actions," id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, arguably casts doubt on the continued viability of some of the categories set forth in Hastings On Hudson and Colon. See Grullon, 720 F.3d at 139 (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of this case, however, it is
Holding statements: (A) holding the same with respect to an apartment (B) holding that no heightened showing is required (C) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (D) recognizing that opinion work product subject to discovery upon heightened showing of compelling need (E) recognizing chat iqbal may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisors personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations

Ex Output:
holding the same with respect to an apartment

Ex Input:
Id., 177 W.Va. at 322, 352 S.E.2d at 72. In Daily Gazette, we noted that "it seems evident that the legislature enacted these provisions with the ultimate purpose of improving the quality of medical care provided in the hospitals of this State." Id., 177 W.Va. at 322, 352 S.E.2d at 71. See Mahmoodian v. United Hospital Center, Inc., 185 W.Va. 59, 65, 404 S.E.2d 750, 756 (1991), cert. denied U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 185, 116 L.Ed.2d 146 (1991), (noting that this Code section "evinces a public policy encouraging health care professionals to monitor the competency and professional conduct of their peers in order to safeguard and improve the quality of patient care"). In Daily Gazette, we also quoted from Jenkins v. Wu, 102 Ill.2d 468, 82 Ill.Dec. 382, 388, 468 N.E.2d 1162, 1168 (1984) (<HOLDING>) that "[T]he purpose of this legislation is not
Holding statements: (A) holding that a similar hawaii statute violates equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that failing to comply with hospital bylaws in connection with peer review proceeding did not vitiate peer review immunity (D) holding a similar peer review confidentiality statute did not deny the plaintiffs equal protection (E) holding that state and federal equal protection guarantees provide similar protections

Ex Output:
holding that a similar hawaii statute violates equal protection