Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for Plaintiffs will redress their alleged injuries, thereby satisfying the third requirement for individual standing. Plaintiffs here seek injunctive relief to mandate that Defendants implement TCM 2. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants’ alleged failure to implement TCM 2. Thus, it goes without question that the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs would alleviate the alleged injuries. Even though Plaintiffs’ injuries might not be completely eliminated by the implementation of TCM 2, any increase in air quality that would result from a favorable decision, is sufficient to satisfy the “minimal requirements of Article III.” Pub. Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc., 913 F.2d 64, 73 (3d Cir.1990) . In short, individual members of Plaintiffs’
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
B. holding that an osha inspection violating the fourth amendment would constitute irreparable injury for which injunctive relief would be appropriate
C. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred
D. holding that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error
E. holding that to have standing plaintiffs must only show that the injunctive relief requested would decrease pollution not that it would return a polluted waterway to pristine condition
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.