With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 547(c)(2)(C) the creditor must demonstrate that the relevant payments were “ordinary in relation to prevailing business terms.” In re Food Catering & Housing, Inc., 971 F.2d 396, 398 (9th Cir.1992). As before, this effectively breaks down into two components. First the creditor must establish the “broad range” of business terms employed by similarly situated debtors and creditors, including those in financial distress, during the relevant period. In re Jan Weilert RV, Inc., 315 F.3d at 1197-98. Second, the creditor must show that the relevant payments were “ordinary in relation to [these] prevailing business terms.” See In re Kaypro, 218 F.3d at 1074. In general, § 547(c)(2)(C) should not pose a particularly high burden for creditors. See In re Jan Weilert RV, Inc., 315 F.3d at 1198 (<HOLDING>). Id. As under § 547(c)(2)(A), James offered no

A: holding that that choices as to selection and arrangement are entitled to copyright protection only so long as they are made independently
B: holding that the commission reasonably interpreted the statute as requiring it to assess the condition of the industry as a whole
C: holding only payments which are so unusual as to be aberrations in the relevant industry do not satisfy  547c2c
D: holding that while trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written orders they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review
C.