With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Cook County was justified in discharging Bodenstab because “[i]t would have been too risky to chance returning [Bodenstab] to his previous position as a Doctor of Anesthesiology at Stroger Hospital in view of the recommendations and observations made by PRC Staff.” Thus, the Hearing Officer’s decision does not support Bodenstab’s claim of pretext. Bodenstab also claims that he presented sufficient evidence of pretext, as well as circumstantial evidence of discrimination, by showing that Cook County failed to follow its own internal policies and by pointing to inconsistencies in various witnesses’ testimony. Bodenstab, however, did not develop these arguments until his reply brief and thus has waived any such argument. See United States v. Alhalabi, 443 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the evidence Bodenstab

A: holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited
B: holding arguments not appropriately developed in brief are waived
C: holding that arguments not fully developed until a reply brief are waived
D: holding arguments first raised in reply brief are forfeited
C.