Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Scott, 172 F.3d at 966-67. 1. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) NEL contends that 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) should have precluded discharge. This section provides that a discharge does not apply to a debtor who, among others, “knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case ... made a false oath or account.” In order for this section to preclude discharge, NEL must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the debtor made a statement under oath; (2) the statement was false; (3) the debtor knew the statement was false; (4) the debtor made the statement with fraudulent intent; and (5) the statement related materially to the bankruptcy case. See, e.g., Lee Supply Corp. v. Agnew (In re Agnew), 818 F.2d 1284, 1289-90 (7th Cir.1987); see also Scott, 172 F.3d at 966-67 . A creditor can establish , fraudulent intent
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence
B. holding preponderance standard applies to 11 usc  727a objections
C. holding that the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 usc  523a is the preponderance of the evidence standard
D. holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to  523 claims
E. holding that the preponderance standard is generally constitutional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.