With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Time Warner, 9 F.3d at 268-69; Beck v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 820 F.2d 46. 50 (2d Cir.1987), overruled on other grounds United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir.1989) (en banc). The current debate percolating in federal district courts, and represented by the parties’ respective positions in this case, is whether the PSLRA adopted a “strong inference” standard which incorporates (in part or in whole) the Second Circuit’s precedent or whether the PSLRA adopted a standard more stringent than the Second Circuit’s, rendering that precedent inapplicable. Compare Rehm v. Eagle Finance Corp., 954 F.Supp. 1246 (N.D.Ill.1997) (following prePSLRA Second Circuit case law), with In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 96-0393, 1996 WL 664639 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 25, 1996) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming arguendo that Congress intended

A: holding that congress intended to adopt a standard more stringent than the prepslra second circuit standard
B: recognizing the circuit split and applying the subjective standard as more stringent without deciding which standard applies
C: holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter
D: holding that terry  parental unfitness  standard is more stringent than the dependency best interests standard
A.