Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and, further, that the incidents in Varon’s claim were isolated and indiscriminate and did not rise to the level of persecution. We agree. We first note that while the 1996 detention and the 2001 telephone threats were on account of Varon’s political opinion, it is less clear whether the 1999 Molotov cock tail incident and the 2002 detention in the forest likewise were motivated by Varon’s actual or imputed political opinion. With respect to the bombing, Varón merely speculates that the bomb was thrown at him by a member of the FER and concedes that he was unable to identify who threw the bomb. Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that the bombing was connected to his political activity. See Silva v. United States Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1238 (11th Cir.2006) . As to the kidnapping in 2000, Varon’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where petitioner testified she did not know who fired shots at her ear or why the evidence did not compel the conclusion that the shooting was based on her political opinion
B. holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed
C. holding that debtor who was separated from her husband and who testified that she would only return to the marital home if her husband vacated the house or died or if she was required to care for him or her adult son there or if the couple reconciled was an abandonment of the marital home as her homestead
D. holding that the elevenyearold victims twentyonemonth delay in reporting her grandfathers inappropriate sexual conduct was adequately explained where the child testified that she did not tell anyone about the incident because her grandfather told her not to tell she did not think anybody was going to believe her and she felt scared and threatened by the defendant
E. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.