Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on Defendant's proposed final instruction number six, as I said before, I think, a, there are ... there is more than one explanation about why the dura on the left side would not have been seen. Transcript at 1815-1822. Ray argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused his instruction on the State's failure to produce evidence. We find Nettles v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind.1991), instructive. In Nettles, the defendant argued that the State failed to preserve potentially useful evide acted in bad faith, we cannot say that the tendered instruction was not misleading. A trial court may properly refuse misleading and confusing instructions tendered by a party. Pub. Serv. Ind., Inc. v. Nichols, 494 N.E.2d 349, 357 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), reh'g denied. Th (Ind.Ct.App.1994) . However, the tendered instruction does not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so
B. holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so
C. holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so
D. holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so
E. holding whether these explanations are reasonable or not depends upon matters that the jury must decide including witness eredibility
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.