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]: CBL claim that if the merger is effected, the public will be harmed because Sparrow Hospital will no longer provide late re at the incipiency and block the merger. This court does not find irreparable injury will result from not enjoining the merger because this court sees a very minimal probability that a divestiture would ever be warranted in the future. For reasons that will be explained infra, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits. Also, plaintiffs claim that if the merger is not enjoined they may lose standing to challenge it, thereby suffering irreparable harm. This court finds no merit in this contention. In making this argument, plaintiffs rely on the case of Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric 477, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (<HOLDING>). For instance, as described above, GLASCCO and
Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim (B) holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts (C) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (D) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing (E) holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: Allen asserts the general admissibility of "public records," but he does not rely on any other specific statutory provision, such as the "public records" exception set forth at section 490.220, RSMo 2000, which provides for admission of office records of other states or the federal government. While public records may be admissible as substantive evidence, that exception is not applicable in this case. "Public records" refers to evidence of "a record kept or prepared by a person whose public duty it is to record the facts stated in the document." See, e.g., State v. Blakeburn, 859. S.W.2d 170, 177 (Mo.App. W.D.1993). The document in this case does not fit within this definition. The report more closely resembles a handbook or manual than an official government of fice record. See id. (<HOLDING>). Cf. Stuart v. Dir. of Revenue, 761 S.W.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that records relating to a student court were not education records (B) recognizing a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents (C) holding that police report containing victim affidavit was not admissible under public records exception (D) holding that an automobiles title history was admissible under the public records exception (E) holding that municipal court records were admissible under official records or public documents exception
[EX A]:
(E)