Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
no reasonable person in Plaintiffs position would have believed that the activities listed in her Complaint constituted a violation under any law or regulation pertinent to SOX. Finally, even assuming Plaintiffs activities were protected under SOX, she cannot demonstrate that these activities were a contributing factor in her termination — the last prima facie element. Although Plaintiff alleges that her reports from March 2003 to January 3, 2008, caused her discharge on August 8, 2008, without additional evidence, the eight-month gap between Plaintiffs last complaint and her discharge “is not sufficiently proximate to permit the inference that protected activity was a contributing factor to her termination.” Pardy v. Gray, No. 07-6324, 2008 WL 2756331, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2008) ; Sussberg v. K-Mart Holding Corp., 463
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation
B. holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing
C. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor
D. holding that twentyfour days between protected activity and termination is sufficient to infer existence of causal connection
E. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.