With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rather, we will consider the explanation mere pretext as a matter of law, unrelated as it is to the reality of the proceedings before the district court. ¶ 30 Were we to hold otherwise, we would sanction the use of fanciful and spurious explanations for even the most sinister discriminatory motives. Without the requirement that the explanation at least have, on its face, a grounding in the context of the case itself, racist or sexist motives could more easily be masked by unrelated but inherently nondiscriminatory explanations. In such a case, the district court would have no need to proceed to step three to plumb the depths of the prosecutor’s motivations because the State had offered nothing concrete by way of explanation. See State v. Chatwin, 2002 UT App 363,¶ 20, 58 P.3d 867 (<HOLDING>). This is just such a case. The prosecutor’s

A: holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial
B: holding that retaliation arising out of first eeoc filing was reasonably related to that filing obviating the need for a second eeoc charge
C: holding that an inmate failed to exhaust where he failed to file a steptwo grievance because his step one was referred to the internal affairs division
D: holding state did not offer legitimate step two explanation obviating the need to proceed to step three
D.