Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
logic to conclude that the act of showing Spartin the other witnesses’ grand jury statements in October 1986 caused Spartin to state that the plaintiff knew of the conspiracy during his grand jury testimony in September 1987, but not during his polygraph examination in December 1986. Therefore, the plaintiffs argument that the Inspectors’ violation of the secrecy rules “tainted” Spartin’s grand jury testimony by causing him to state a “phony opinion” necessarily fails. Whatever the reason for the apparent change in Spartin’s opinion between December 1986 and September 1987, the plaintiff offers no evidence — only conclusory allegations— that the opinion Spartin offered at the grand jury hearing was swayed by the Inspectors’ violation of the secrecy rules. See Greene, 164 F.3d at 675 . Because the plaintiff has presented no
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that unsubstantiated representations will not withstand summary judgment
B. holding that plaintiff who provides evidence of acts more severe than a lack of due care may withstand summary judgment motion on a failure to protect claim
C. holding that an employees unsubstantiated testimony that he was better qualified than employees that were not subject to adverse employment actions was insufficient to defeat summary judgment
D. holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence
E. recognizing that the decedents claim should withstand summary judgment despite counsels concession  that he will be unlikely to prevail at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.