Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
little evidence in order to overcome an employer’s motion for summary judgment” because “the ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through a searching inquiry— one that is most appropriately conducted by a factfinder, upon a full record.” Davis, 520 F.3d at 1089 (quotation marks omit ted); see also McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir.2004) (“In evaluating motions for summary judgment in the context of employment discrimination, we have emphasized the importance of zealously guarding an employee’s right to a full trial, since discrimination claims are frequently difficult to prove without a full airing of the evidence and an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”); Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406, 1409 (9th Cir.1996)  (second alteration in original) (quotation
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that very little  evidence is necessary to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding an employers motive any indication of discriminatory motive  may suffice to raise a question that can only be resolved by a factfinder
B. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
C. holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive
D. holding that defendants alleged motive to enhance its ability to raise cash under a 80 million credit facility agreement  is a sufficient motive to raise an inference of fraudulent intent
E. holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.