With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — the statute requires only temporary disfigurement. See § 13-1204(A)(3). ¶ 14 With respect to the victim’s abdominal injury, Pena claims it did not constitute substantial disfigurement because “[it] was in an area normally covered by clothing” and thus did not affect her visible appearance. We disagree with this contention. The location of an injury can obviously be a relevant factor in evaluating the degree of disfigurement caused by the injury. For example, an injury to the face will usually be more disfiguring than the same injury to a part of the body typically covered by clothes. But we reject the suggestion that an injury to a location of the body “normally covered by clothing” can never be disfiguring. Cf. People v. Newton, 7 Ill.App.3d 445, 287 N.E.2d 485, 486 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, parts of the body usually covered by

A: holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality
B: holding jury could find small scar hidden by hair was permanent disfigurement
C: holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation
D: holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified
B.