With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Simply put, the Court does not believe that Plaintiffs, after only one month as Sellstate Area Representatives, should have jumped to the conclusion that Cress-well’s income projections were false. New businesses often take time to become profitable, and hence it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to expect some time to pass before their new venture would return the types of gains Cresswell (supposedly) had previously suggested. See, e.g., Envtl. Biotech, Inc. v. Sibbitt Enters., Inc., No. 2:03-cv-124, 2008 WL 5070251, at *6 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 24, 2008) (noting that a “five-month period of income” is too “small [a] window of time” to provide a “reliable indicator of ... future cash flow”); K.B.R., Inc. v. L.A. Smoothie Corp., Civ. A. No. 95-116, 1996 WL 156874, at *9 (E.D.La. Apr. 3, 1996) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, had Plaintiffs commenced their action

A: holding that it may not
B: recognizing that it often takes a new franchise several years before it begins making money
C: recognizing that missouri courts have often held that regulations may establish the appropriate standard of care in a negligence case
D: recognizing that harassment often lacks the permanence that discriminatory actions have
B.