With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As we have noted, appellants ultimately must prove that they were the victims of age discrimination. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Appellants contend that Franz, and indeed the entire command at the USAM-RIID, harbored a discriminatory attitude towards older employees. This bias, appellants argue, led to their discharge. To support this claim, appellants point to several pieces of evidence. First, they point to a memorandum written ■ by Colonel Franz to his superior in May 1995, asking for a reduction in the number of cuts for the USAMRIID. Franz stated: My goal is to accomplish the reductions with minimal impact on mission. This will be difficult, given the large decrement, and will result in my actions impacting negatively on our staff of key 6, 531 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Gagne v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 881

A: holding that the reference to needing some new young blood was insufficiently probative of age bias
B: holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw
C: holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct
D: holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint
A.