With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it had ample opportunity to do so. Instead Congress must have realized that the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” would necessarily be interpreted in the context of the statute to which it applies (18 U.S.C. § 1962). Thus, the term “pattern”, when used in this context, applies to the relationship of the acts to the enterprises, and no more. The definition of “racketeering activity” in the section and the additional definition of “pattern of racketeering activity,” taken together, results in the conclusion that the “pattern” definition states a minimum but not necessarily an exclusive definition. A main focus of Title IX was the enterprise, not only the persons committing the acts, and Congress felt that the “pattern” would be supplied by this common fact (E.D.Pa. 1977) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of deciding the present motion

A: holding that a school board policy prohibiting employees from sending their children to private schools interfered with employees constitutional right to control the education of their children
B: recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children
C: holding that acceptance of four bribes over a two and onehalf year period from parents who wanted their children admitted to graduate school appeared to be a sufficient pattern to satisfy the statute
D: holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable
C.