Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the applicable substantive standard. Thus, if the substantive law required clear and convincing evidence to support an element of the claim or defense, the court might grant summary judgment if, in considering a motion for directed verdict on the same evidentiary basis, it would have concluded that the evidence presented was so “one-sided” it failed to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-56, 106 S.Ct. at 2511-14. Given this rule, in cases in which the burden is greater than a preponderance of the evidence, analytical constructs that turn on such concepts as “scintilla of the evidence” and “slightest doubt” are no longer useful. This court has already adopted Anderson’s holding in conjunction with first amendment cases. See Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 486, 724 P.2d at 572 . There are, of course, other civil cases in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff
B. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff
C. holding that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to section 101 challenges
D. holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied
E. holding that where the new york times clear and convincing evidence requirement applies the summary judgment inquiry will be whether the evidence presented is such that a jury applying that evidentiary standard could reasonably find for either plaintiff or defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.