Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statistics but also all the surrounding facts and circumstances”); Police Officers for Equal Rights v. City of Columbus, 644 F.Supp. 393, 432 n. 13 (S.D.Ohio 1985) (stating that even if plaintiff fell short of cut-offs for statistical significance, “other evidence submitted in this case ... tends to support the inference of disparate impact suggested by plaintiffs statistical data”). The Plaintiffs bolster their evidence on statistical significance by presenting evidence that the 2005 and 2008 exams violated the four-fifths rule. As this Court has already held, “a violation of the four-fifths rule ... may demonstrate adverse impact, particularly when coupled with other statistical evidence of adverse impact.” Cotter, 193 F.Supp.2d at 348 n. 12; see also Bradley, 443 F.Supp.2d at 163 . The Court also considers the fact that if the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that numbers alone are not sufficient to establish or negate a prima facie ease
B. holding that statistical evidence that was too broad to support a prima facie case of systemic disparate treatment was nevertheless admissible in plaintiffs individual disparate treatment case but noting that a valid statistical analysis must encompass the rel evant labor market
C. holding that a plaintiffs failure to establish the statistical significance of her evidence fatally undermines her claim
D. holding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie ease of statistical significance by using the fourfifths rule combined with a chisquare analysis
E. holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of disparate impact despite a lack of statistical significance based on past discrimination which reduced the number of africanamericans eligible to sit for the promotional exam
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.