Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
support of his application for asylum and found that large portions of that statement were copied from “five different asylum declarations filed in five different cases.” The plagiarism was so extensive that the IJ noted that many of the five statements had “full paragraphs identical to those of the respondent.” During the IJ’s hearing, Sliusar was asked to explain these similarities. Rather than explaining them, his testimony produced further inconsistencies with his prior testimony to the court and the asylum officer. Given the obvious plagiarism in his application, his inability to explain why his statement was so similar to others, and the inconsistencies within his own sworn testimony, the IJ properly found Sliusar not credible. Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 918-19 (9th Cir.2008) . The record also supports the IJ’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that inconsistencies in the aliens statements must go to the heart of the asylum claim to justify an adverse credibility finding
B. holding that inconsistencies between an aliens application and testimony and an inability to explain those ineonsistencies establishes frivolousness by a preponderance of the evidence
C. holding that inconsistencies between an application and testimony can serve as the basis for adverse credibility findings where the testimonial change goes to the heart of a petitioners claim
D. holding that testimony of sixyearold vietim was not incredibly dubious despite some inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies are appropriate to the cireumstances presented the age of the witness and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and testimony
E. holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.