Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664, 666 (8th Cir.1992); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 968 F.2d 695, 699 (8th Cir.1992). The nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the record. Vette Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1980) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis Given the absence of direct evidence of age discrimination in the present case, plaintiffs disparate treatment claim is best analyzed at the present stage of the litigation as a McDonnell Douglas pretext case. See Ryther v. KARE 11, 108 F.3d 832, 836 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1997) (en banc) , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2510, 138
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a title vii plaintiff need not plead the elements of a mcdonnell douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss
B. holding that the facts of the ease fall under the mcdonnell douglas standard which does not require direct proof of discrimination for the plaintiff to make a submissible case
C. holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixedmotive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under the more taxing mcdonnell douglas standard
D. holding that without a link to the challenged decision stray remarks did not constitute indirect evidence of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the final prong of the mcdonnell douglas framework
E. holding that a plaintiff who could not demonstrate every element of the mcdonnell douglas test could nonetheless demonstrate a prima facie case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.