In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

are reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, and therefore are ambiguous. See Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Keller Transp., Inc., 382 Mont. 72, 365 P.3d 465, 470 (Mont. 2016). Montana law construes ambiguous provisions “against the insurer and in favor of extending coverage.” Id. We therefore reject United Fire’s argument that the Premises Endorsements limit coverage to incidents that occurred on the St. George premises. Because the Premises Endorsements purport to cover claims “arising out of ... the use of’ the St. George premises, they are sufficiently capacious to include coverage for bodily injury in Montana that flows from or grows out of the use of the St. George premises. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferrin, 311 Mont. 155, 54 P.3d 21, 23 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Thus, United Fire had a duty to defend 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity (B) holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from (C) holding that insurance provisions excluding damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles subject to registration and damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles if the injury or damage occurs away from the insured premises were ambiguous because together they could be read in four different ways (D) holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear (E) holding phrase arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as contained in um policy should be given same interpretation as in automobile liability policies
holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity

is clear.” Investment Company Institute, 891 F.Supp.2d at 205. The appellants also assert that the agency improperly counted hypothetical benefits, but this assertion is incorrect. It was appropriate for CFTC to count the benefits flowing from its registration and disclosure requirements in § 4.5 and § 4.27, as the specifics of those requirements are finalized and not subject to the harmonization rule. The appellants further complain that CFTC failed to put a precise number on the benefit of data collection in preventing future financial crises. But the law does not require agencies to measure the immeasurable. CFTC’s discussion of unquantifiable benefits fulfills its statutory obligation to consider and evaluate potential costs and benefits. See Fox, 556 U.S. at 519, 129 S.Ct. 1800 (<HOLDING>). Where Congress has required “rigorous, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (B) holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued (C) holding that agencies are not required to adduce empirical data that cannot be obtained (D) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (E) recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence
holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies

and verse in the Bible where the Lord’s Prayer appears; how many chapters are in the Bible; the content of Psalm 23) constituted "an impermissible governmental inquiry into religious dogma and practice.” Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 727-29 (9th Cir.1997) (Ferguson, J., dissenting). 4 . The Government argues that Golkar should have corroborated his account of his conversion, but absent a legitimate reason to doubt Golkar’s "direct and specific” testimony about his conversion, corroborating evidence is not required. Kaur, 379 F.3d at 889-90. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In my view, we are not compelled to find that the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination was erroneous. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 671 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). If even one of the bases supporting the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies (B) holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted (C) holding that contrary determination must be compelled to reverse the ij (D) holding that the ij must make clean determinations of credibility (E) holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice

holding that an ij made an explicit credibility when the ij found testimony not credible based on several enumerated inconsistencies

