With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". investigated all of the incidents that plaintiff had complained off she did not know what exactly Mr. Ross had said. Thus, there being no proper explanation as to plaintiffs contradictory version as to this fact the court need not make unreasonable inferences in her favor. See Meuser v. Federal Express Corp., 564 F.3d at 515. Furthermore, the court can not, as plaintiff suggests, infer that Mr. Ross did in fact make the alleged discriminatory comments to her in the presence of Mrs. Ferguson and that no remedial action was taken because according to her Mr. Ross used to make racial slurs which TSI knew about, but never did anything about. The court cannot draw any reasonable inferences from such an assertion. See Caban Hernández v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) Having said that, there is also nothing that

A: recognizing that police officers can draw inferences from prior experience
B: holding that a court does not have to draw unreasonable inferences or credit bald assertions empty conclusions rank conjecture or vitriolic invective
C: holding court obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor
D: holding that courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor
B.