With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.106; State ex rel. WW., No. 12-13-00045-CV, 2013 WL 3156312, at *6 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Because W.W. presented evidence to the trial court of his preference to avoid an increased dose ... based upon its side effects and ineffectiveness, it is presumed that the trial court gave his preferences due consideration.”); In re T.O.R., No. 02-12-00376-CV, 2013 WL 362747, at *5 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("T.O.R. did not present any evidence to dispute So-biesk’s testimony about the medications’ benefits and the ineffectiveness of alternative treatments.”); M.H. v. State ex rel. M.H., No. 01-09-00205-CV, 2009 WL 2050988, at *4-5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 16, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. A.R.F., No. 12-03-00294-CV,

A: holding evidence of conspiracy sufficient and noting lack of evidence that any member of the group did anything but cooperate with the terms of the plan to commit robbery
B: holding that the findings of reviewing physicians constituted substantial evidence in support of the secretarys decision to deny benefits
C: holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding when patient did not present any evidence to dispute physicians testimony about benefits of treatment with psychoactive medications and lack of alternative treatments
D: holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned
C.