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:
718. Under Texas law, a person may engage in the practice of engineering, architecture, or landscape architecture if he is licensed in those professions. See Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 3271a, 1.2 (Vernon Supp.1999) (engineering); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art.249a, 1 (Vernon Supp.1999) (architecture); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 249c, 5(a) (Vernon Supp.1999) (landscape architecture). The State complains Henry was allowed to testified as to matters requiring expertise in surveying, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture even though he is not licensed in any of those professions. Therefore, because Henry is not licensed, he was not qualified to testify as an expert. See Prellwitz v. Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker & Woodsmale, 802 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, no writ) (<HOLDING>); but see Southland Lloyd's Ins. Co. v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury (B) holding that a witness who will be giving opinion evidence about a propertys fair market value must be disclosed and designated as an expert pursuant to discovery and other applicable rules (C) recognizing that a licensed chiropractor is a health care provider competent to testify as a medical expert (D) holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts (E) holding that witness giving expert opinion regarding stan dard of care for particular licensed profession must hold license for same profession

Ex Output:
holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury

Ex Input:
their quest had generally confirmed their suspicion. Thereafter it was incumbent upon them to make a decision as to their course of action with "reasonable dispatch." Occidental Life Ins. Co. of North Carolina v. Pat Ryan & Associates, Inc., supra, 496 F.2d at 1268; Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, supra, 488 F.2d at 917; Baumel v. Rosen, supra, 412 F.2d at 574. The question, therefore, is whether plaintiffs were guilty of unreasonable delay during the period from May 20, 1969 to August 27, 1969. Considering the number of plaintiffs involved and the time necessary for counsel to research legal authorities and draft and prepare the original complaint, this Court concludes that there was no unreasonable delay. Cf. Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 343 F.Supp. 245, 255-56 (D.Md.1972) (<HOLDING>), rev'd, 488 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1973) (in jury
Holding statements: (A) holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal (B) holding inter alia that 130 days was reasonable period for researching and drafting of complaint (C) holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay (D) holding that delays of 115 days and 101 days were both substantial (E) holding that a difference between 384 days prepreference average number of days to payment and 547 days preference average number of days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business

Ex Output:
holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal

Ex Input:
employed statistical method used in a variety of settings that randomly perturbed the lines of an initial districting plan to generate successive new plans. Id. at 13-15. The computer algorithm then eliminated from the 150,000 plan sample all "unreasonable" districting plans plans with noncontiguous districts, plans with population deviations exceeding 0.1 percent, plans that were not reasonably compact under common statistical measures of compactness, plans that did not minimize the number of county and VTD splits, and plans that did not comply with the' Voting Rights Act yielding the 24,518-plan ensemble. id. at 15-17. The criteria Dr. Mattingly used to eliminate "unreason able" plans from his sample reflect traditional redistricting criteria, see Harris, 136 S.Ct. at 1306 (<HOLDING>), and nearly all non-partisan criteria adopted
Holding statements: (A) holding that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10 falls within the category of minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the fourteenth amendment notwithstanding that the plain language of the constitution references no such statistical threshold (B) holding that bail revocation serves to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and the authority of the courts and protect the public from potentially dangerous persons (C) holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 (D) holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity (E) recognizing compactness contiguity maintaining integrity of political subdivisions and potentially compliance with the voting rights act as legitimate considerations for deviations from population equality in state redistricting plans

Ex Output:
holding that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10 falls within the category of minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the fourteenth amendment notwithstanding that the plain language of the constitution references no such statistical threshold