Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). A claimant can demonstrate pretext “by showing that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” Dews v. A.B. Dick Co., 231 F.3d 1016, 1021 (6th Cir.2000). “Regardless of which option is used, the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of producing ‘sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably reject [the defendants’] explanation and infer that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him.’ ” Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 866 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir.2001) (alteration in original)). See also Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1466 (6th Cir.1990) ; Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a plaintiff can establish pretext only by showing that her employers explanation is a he
B. holding that temporal proximity together with evidence of a retaliatory atmosphere and the employers statement supported an inference of retaliation and satisfied the second part of the manzer pretext showing
C. holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision  was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity
D. holding that a petitioner did not make a prima facie showing of illegal discrimination because the petitioner needed to point to more facts than the number of africanamericans struck in order to establish a pattern of strikes supporting an inference of discrimination
E. holding that statistical evidence presented by the plaintiff showing an employers pattern of conduct toward a protected class is relevant to a showing of pretext and can create an inference of discrimination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.