With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 330 (noting that in order to uphold the Commission’s findings under the substantial evidence standard, we "determine whether the agency has adequately explained how it derived its conclusion and whether that conclusion is reasonable on the basis of the record”). 7 . The dissent asserts that the record is inadequate to support the Commission’s consider ation of the factors leading to its exigent circumstances determination. As we indicated in Reserve Mining, the burden is on the appellant to establish that the Commission’s findings are not supported by the evidence in the record. 256 N.W.2d at 824-27. Minnesota Power makes no claim that the factors considered by the Commission or the Commission’s findings are not supported by the record. Rather 3-44, 246 N.W.2d 455, 457-58 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Further, the Commission’s decision is

A: holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious
B: holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts
C: holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision
D: holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious
B.