With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664, 666 (8th Cir.1992); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 968 F.2d 695, 699 (8th Cir.1992). The nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the record. Vette Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1980) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis Given the absence of direct evidence of age discrimination in the present case, plaintiffs disparate treatment claim is best analyzed at the present stage of the litigation as a McDonnell Douglas pretext case. See Ryther v. KARE 11, 108 F.3d 832, 836 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1997) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2510, 138

A: holding that the facts of the ease fall under the mcdonnell douglas standard which does not require direct proof of discrimination for the plaintiff to make a submissible case
B: holding that without a link to the challenged decision stray remarks did not constitute indirect evidence of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the final prong of the mcdonnell douglas framework
C: holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixedmotive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under the more taxing mcdonnell douglas standard
D: holding that a title vii plaintiff need not plead the elements of a mcdonnell douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss
A.