With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is insufficient to support the contention that Vasquez used forged documents to obtain work ¶34 The Court of Appeals held that since Vasquez might have mentioned to Englund that he had worked in the area, the jury could infer that he possessed forged documents with an intent to injure or defraud a third party. Vasquez, 166 Wn. App. at 53. Such generalized intent to injure or defraud may be shown if “an intent appears to defraud any person, association or body politic or corporate whatsoever,” RCW 10.58.040, and may also be inferred by the facts and circumstances that demonstrate intent as a matter of logical probability, see Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d at 4. However, inferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable and cannot be based on speculation. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 31 S. Ct.

A: holding that triers of fact may draw only reasonable inferences
B: holding that fact finder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence and choose which inference is most reasonable
C: holding court obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor
D: holding that courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor
A.