Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Illinois and Florida to his declaration of intent to reside in Florida indefinitely, the court will need to determine what weight to give to the declaration. See Prakash v. American University et al., 727 F.2d 1174, 1181 (D.C.Cir.1984). This determination, as it depends upon the credibility of the declaration and Hicks’s credibility as a witness, is difficult to make solely on the basis of a paper record. See Sapperstein, 188 F.3d at 856 (questioning credibility determinations based solely on affidavits in determining subject matter jurisdiction); see also Mendiola v. Schomig, 224 F.3d 589, 598 n. 4 (7th Cir.2000) (Rovner, J., dissenting) (noting that credibility assessments from a paper record are unreliable); Medeco Security Locks, Inc. v. Swiderek, 680 F.2d 37, 38 (7th Cir.1981) ; United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207, 1214
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the district court is not bound by its prior factual findings determined in a preliminary injunction hearing
B. holding that a hearing must be held to determine credibility in preliminary injunction cases
C. recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated
D. holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified
E. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.