Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
counselor who treated her. During the administrative hearing, Dr. Vargas testified that the plaintiff has a generalized anxiety disorder with a panic disorder. Opponent’s Evidence Submitted in Response to Exhibit D of the Court’s Order, Exhibit 2, at 150. Dr. Vargas also testified that the plaintiff had been prescribed anti-depressant medication in the past, id. at 134, 138-39, and that she had been suicidal, id. at 136. The plaintiff infers that “[t]he testimony of [her] psychotherapist, Dr. Vargas, was strong enough that Judge Volkman stopped the hearing immediately after hearing Dr. Vargas’ testimony.” Opponent’s Amended Responsive Submission in Response to Exhibit D of the Court’s Order, at 5. Again, the plaintiffs inference is not reasonable. See Brown, 848 F.2d at 1540 n. 12 . The plaintiff commits the common fallacy of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a reasonable inference need not be the sole possible inference
B. recognizing that to uphold the government contentions would require the court to pile inference upon inference
C. holding that the nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference
D. recognizing that a vital fact may not be established by piling inference upon inference
E. holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.