Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and performance benefits. In any event, the tag-line is too vague and non-specific to conclude that it necessarily implies a direct comparison to Gatorade. 28. Moreover, the claim “Upgrade your game” is also puffery. The claim is exaggerated and boastful, and no reasonable consumer, having read the slogan, would be justified in believing that it would actually result in improved athletic abilities, such as playing a better game of basketball. See, e.g., Time Warner Cable, Inc., 497 F.3d at 160 (an “ ‘exaggerated, blustering, and boasting statement upon which no reasonable buyer would be justified in relying’ ” is puffery) (quoting Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir.2000)); Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997) . 29. The tagline is also puffery in that any
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a wellfounded fear requires petitioner to show more than a generalized or random possibility of persecution
B. holding that an officer responding to a call that individuals were dealing drugs had more than a generalized suspicion
C. holding that statement less is more was generalized boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely
D. holding that the statement i have a gun is a threat of death because a reasonable teller upon hearing the statement normally and reasonably would fear that his or her life is in danger
E. holding that a company which knew when it issued a policy that the insureds interest in the insured property was less than fee simple could not rely upon a provision rendering the policy void if the insureds interest was less than fee simple
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.