Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a long string of performance problems leading up to firing. The further back in time a court goes to evaluate an employee’s performance, the more removed the evidence is from the time of the termination. As we explained in Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 681 F.2d 230 (4th Cir.1982): The rationality, hence fairness, of this inference [of unlawful discrimination] obviously decreases as the time gap between last proven satisfactory performance and challenged employment action lengthens. Here, the time lag was almost two years. As common experience in such matters teaches, and as the full record reveals the case here to have been, a great deal can happen to alter things in such a time. Id. at 244. See also O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 56 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1995) , rev’d on other grounds, 517 U.S. 308, 116
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a review of an employees 1989 performance was irrelevant to a determination of whether his performance was satisfactory at the time of his termination in august of 1990
B. holding that governmentcaused delay in contractor performance violated implied duty not to hinder performance of other party
C. holding that prior positive performance evaluations are not dispositive as to whether the employer was satisfied with the employees performance by the time of the termination
D. holding ones satisfactory performance of duties leading to a promotion does establish a plaintiffs qualification for a job
E. holding that allegations concerning the plaintiffs satisfactory work performance termination and much younger replacement did not  by themselves  suffice to plead an age discrimination claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.