Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
ample evidence for the plaintiffs’ case to avoid summary judgment.” (quoting Acosta-Orozco v. Rodriguez-de-Rivera, 132 F.3d 97, 101 (1st Cir.1997))); González-de-Blasini, 377 F.3d at 86 (recognizing that a “ ‘prima facie case for political discrimination may be built on circumstantial evidence’ ” so long as plaintiffs have “generated ‘the specific facts necessary to take the asserted claim out of the realm of speculative, general allegations’ ” (quoting Kauffman v. P.R. Tel. Co., 841 F.2d 1169, 1173 (1st Cir.1988))). The evidence here, “though thin, point[s] in different directions; that is, it tend[s] to support conflicting inferences. Summary judgment cannot be predicated on so vacillatory a record.” Mandel, 456 F.3d at 207; see also In re Varrasso, 37 F.3d 760, 764 (1st Cir.1994) . The judgment of the district court is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case
B. holding that a court faced with competing plausible inferences may not make its choice under the banner of summary judgment
C. holding that court should balance competing interests
D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alteramend judgment where the plaintiff raised the choice of law issue for the first time after the entry of summary judgment
E. holding that a superior court justice may not choose between conflicting inferences at summary judgment stage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.